LETTER IV. FROM THE REV. GRISLEY SKINNER, CANON RESIDENTIARY OF TO THE REV. CLEMENT FRANKLY, CURATE OF LITTLE EASINGTON. DEAR AND REVEREND SIR,

I lose no time in expressing to you my great satisfaction at the accounts I have received, from more than one quarter, of the impression produced in my parish by your sermon of last Sunday. Indeed, I am happy to say that Sir Hardress himself has written to me in very favourable terms of it. I am sure this cannot fail to be a source of high gratification to you; feeling, as I am sure you must, that to obtain the favourable testimony of the principal persons in his parish, and the approbation of his superiors in the church, must be always the first object for every clergyman to keep in mind. Not to mention, what you cannot be insensible to, its great importance with a view to further preferment hereafter. I approve highly of the text and subject which I understand you chose for your sermon-the beauty and efficacy of Christian Charity. Go on and prosper.

I am, Dear and Reverend sir,

Yours in all truth and affection,
GRISLEY SKINNER.

P.S. It escaped me to mention to you that you will find that the quarterly draft for your salary, which you will receive regularly, is not an even sum of ten pounds, owing to the deduction for Property Tax.

THE COMING REFORMATION.

PART IV.

"Men, my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new, That which they have done but earnest of the things which they will do.” TENNYSON

MY DEAR PERCY,-In my former letters I have explained what seem to me the strong and the weak points of the two great parties called Tories and Radicals. They both respond to a real necessity. The Tories will always have a great "show of reason," proclaiming, as they do, the principles of Order. The Radicals will always find an echo in the breast of the masses, proclaiming, as they do, the

principles of Progress. But the grand political problem will ever remain this: how the two principles of Order and Progress are to be united in one doctrine.

At present, the strength of Toryism lies, as I said, in the fear of an undue predominance of the principles of Progress-the fear of ill-considered change. The strength of Radicalism, in like manner, lies in the fear of an undue predominance of the principles of Order to the exclusion of those of Progress-the fear of a Retrogression, or at the best of a stationary inactivity.

From neither Tories nor Radicals can we expect the desired solution. What of the Whigs? On a superficial glance they seem to hit the precise point: they take from Toryism its idea of Order, and from Radicalism its idea of Progress; stopping short of the excesses of each. Let me quote the eloquent exposition of perhaps the greatest of all the Whigs-Edmund Burke. Speaking of our Constitution, he says: "This policy appears to me the result of profound reflection; or rather the happy effect of following nature, which is wisdom without reflection and above it. A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. . . . Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world, and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts; wherein by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom moulding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole at one time is never old, nor middle-aged, nor young, but in a condition of unchangeable constancy moves on through the varied tenour of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus by preserving the method of nature, in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new ; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. By adhering in this manner and on those principles to our forefathers, we are guided, not by the superstitions of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy. In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood; binding up the constitution of the country with our dearest domestic ties; adopting our fundamental laws into the bosoms of our family affections; keeping inseparable and cherishing with the warmth of all their combined and mutually reflected charities our states, our hearths, our sepulchres, and our altars. . . . Always acting as if in the presence of canonised forefathers, the Spirit of Freedom, leading

in itself to misrule and excess, is tempered with an awful gravity. ... Those opposed and conflicting interests, which you considered as so great a blemish in our old and in our present constitution interpose a salutary check to all precipitate resolution; that action and counteraction which in the natural and in the political world, from the reciprocal struggle of discordant powers, draws out the harmony of the universe.'

...

This is grand writing it must be confessed, and there is more of it; indeed I do not wonder at any one's becoming a convert to Whiggism who studies it in the glorious pages of its greatest writer. But, removed from the fascinations of his eloquence, Whiggism has a very different aspect. In fact it has almost a ludicrous aspect. I am constantly reminded by it of the reply of that ingenious youth, who loved to steer between extremes, and when asked for his opinion as to the earth's turning round the sun or the sun's turning round the earth, said, "Sometimes one, sir, and sometimes the other." In trying to agree with both sides, he was thus certain of being in error. This is the case with speculative Whiggism. It sometimes votes for the Order of the Tories, and sometimes for the Progress of the Radicals, not perceiving that the two opinions are wholly at variance. The theory of Toryism is compact and consistent enough: it says, "Our Institutions are as perfect as human Institutions can be." The theory of Radicalism is no less explicit : it says, "Our Institutions are effete, are the product of a byegone condition of things, and must be cleared away Whereupon Whiggism says to the Tories, "Truly, our Institutions are perfect, ergo must be preserved;" to the Radicals, Assuredly we must advance with the times, we must allow of Progress, ergo our Institutions must be cleared away." As the contradiction here would be too glaring, Whiggism modifies it by saying that the reforms should be temperate, slow, gradual-the destruction should be carried on piecemeal. The whole is expressed by an ingenious metaphor: "We must renew the vigour of our constitution by the infusion of new blood." Oh, how often have I heard some fat-headed politician philosophically utter that metaphor (he believing he was uttering a maxim!) how often has it been used to settle an argument, and it is still a marvel to me how intelligent men can ever have been deluded by so false an analogy. Infuse new blood, indeed! what into a dead carcase? Is that to reanimate the body? Neither in physiology nor in politics can such a phrase be anything but foolish sounds. The old man,

at once.

tottering to his grave, will not have have his step made firmer though the blood of a hundred youths were taken from their veins and infused into his body; nor can the Institutions grown too old for the nation, be preserved from decay by the infusion of any new ideas. Göthe profoundly says, that everything which falls, deserves to fall; that is the law of weakness. Instead of propping it up, you should build something stronger. Ideas which are the lifegiving forces of society incarnate themselves in Forms or Institutions; when these forces are spent, the Forms remain as Formulas, and wise men will exert themselves to get these Formulas cleared away, being mere obstructions. It is poor wisdom to endeavour to thrust beneath those skeletons a new spirit, hoping thus to reanimate them. Let Forms disappear, and each Idea clothe itself in its own Form.

Whiggism is a chimæra. Seeing that Order and Progress are necessary principles, it makes up a patchwork doctrine from Toryism and Radicalism: and-glorious logic!—while convinced that both these parties are wholly incompetent to regulate society, yet its final conclusion is that they should both be applied in combination! This is, as I said, out of two errors to make a truth.

Either society is to remain stationary or it is to advance. Whiggism cannot be allowed to say, It shall do both. If it is to remain stationary, Toryism is right; if to advance, then Radicalism is right.

These dilemmas result from the anarchical state of all our political opinions. The Whig feels with us that neither Toryism nor Radicalism is right; and yet not having any principles of his own, he is forced to borrow those of the two parties opposing each other, and thus out of two absurdities educe a congruity.

Whiggism is in truth a mere evasion of the difficulty from not having any principles. Whigs are the temporisers necessary in our state of speculative anarchy; the Unitarians of politicsneither Infidels nor Believers. Their great merit is having recognised the twofold nature of the fundamental problem: the necessity for reconciling the two antagonists, Order and Progress. But their speculative incapacity is shown in every attempt to reconcile these two.

It has been well said by Comte, "that the celebrated maxim of Thiers: Le roi règne et ne gouverne pas," has by its immense and rapid success shown how completely extinct is the real spirit of monarchy, and that it shows "the transitory nature of a govern

ment founded on such an inconsequent policy, which is, however, the exact expression of what now-a-days is called the "constitutional spirit." A puppet king, who reigns but does not govern, is assuredly a strange spectacle for the political philosopher-a striking example of a Formula subsisting long after its spirit has departed; and an illustration of the "constitutional spirit" about which Whigs talk so much. In this way is "our glorious Constitution" to be kept free from the assaults of innovation! The spirit of monarchy may be dead, but at least we preserve the puppet form-the monarch. The spirit of aristocracies may be decaying, but at least we will preserve its Formulas, and defend the sacred laws of primogeniture and of hereditary legislation. The spirit of our Church may be changed, but we at least can preserve its Ceremonies, its Bishops, and its Pluralities. And all this out of love and deep reverence for our Constitution!

Such on high speculative ground-are, I believe, the real characteristics of Whiggism. Coming down into the lower and turbulent sphere of practice, I know several modifications must be suggested there, many of the Whigs are but undecided Radicals. But the grand characteristic may be expressed in a sentence: "The Whigs are Tories in opposition!

Thus, Percy, you see how Toryism, Radicalism, and Whiggism -the three parties disputing for government are one and all incompetent, and the necessity for a New Party becomes irresistible. First let me call your attention to this great fundamental fact that Society has gradually undergone a complete changefrom being Military and consequently Monarchical, it has become Industrial and consequently Democratic.

This change is, as I said, fundamental, and brings with it the necessity for Institutions fundamentally different. What an error to suppose that Industrial ideas can ever be infused into Military Institutions in the guise of young blood! Who does not see, as soon as the real condition of Society is stated, that such an attempt is hopeless? Who therefore can accept the Tory or the Whig solution; or who that still more contradictory solution offered by the New Party, which calls itself Young England, the tendency of which is to revive in all their vigour Feudal Times? The mere statement of the question is a condemnation of every party except the Radical party, and that has no constructive principles.

The New Party therefore of which I signalise the advent, must be something wholly unlike existing parties. Inasmuch as