number of places held by members of Parliament was being continually reduced, the general

Patronage an instrument of

patronage of the government had been exparty. tended by augmented establishments and expenditure. But throughout these changes, patronage was the mainspring of the organisation of parties. It was used to promote the interests, and consolidate the strength of that party in which its distribution happened to be vested. The higher appointments offered attractions and rewards to the upper classes, for their political support. The lower appointments were not less influential with constituencies. The offer of places, as a corrupt inducement to vote at elections, had long been recognised by the legislature, as an insidious form of bribery.1 But without committing any offence against the law, patronage continued to be systematically used as the means of rewarding past political service, and ensuring future support. The greater part of all local patronage was dispensed through the hands of members of Parliament, supporting the ministers of the day. They claimed and received it as their right; and distributed it, avowedly, to strengthen their political connection. Constituents learned too well to estimate the privileges of ministerial candidates, and the barren honours of the opposition; and the longer a party enjoyed power, the more extended became its influence with electors.

The same cause served to perpetuate party distinctions among constituent bodies, apart from varieties of

1 2 Geo. II. c. 21; 49 Geo. III. c. 118, &c.; Rogers on Elections, 316-347.

interests and principles. The ministerial party were bound together by favours received and expected: the party in opposition,-smarting under neglect and hope deferred,-combined against their envied rivals, and followed, with all the ardour of self-interest, the parliamentary leaders, who were denied at once the objects of their own ambition and the power of befriending their clients. Hence, when the principles of contending parties have seemed to be approaching agreement, their interests have kept them nearly as far asunder as ever.

competi

The principle of competition, lately applied to the distribution of offices, threatened to Effect of subvert the established influence of pa- tion upon tronage. With open competition, candi- patronage. dates owe nothing to ministers. In this way, the civil and medical services of India, the scientific corps of the army, and some civil departments of the state, were wholly lost to ministers of the crown. This loss, however, was compensated for a time by the limited competition introduced into other departments. There, for every vacancy, a minister nominated three or more candidates. The best was chosen ; and, with the same number of offices, the patronage of the minister was multiplied. Two of his nominees were disappointed: but the patron was not the less entitled to their gratitude. He lamented their failure, but could not avert it. Their lack of proficiency was no fault of his.1

In the history of parties, there is much to deplore

1 In 1870 open competition was extended to nearly all the other public departments.

Review of

merits of

party.

and condemn: but more to approve and to commend. We observe the evil passions of our the evils and nature aroused,-'envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness.' We see the foremost of our fellow-countrymen contending with the bitterness of foreign enemies, reviling each other with cruel words,-misjudging the conduct of eminent statesmen, and pursuing them with vindictive animosity. We see the whole nation stirred with sentiments of anger and hostility. We find factious violence overcoming patriotism; and ambition and self-interest prevailing over the highest obligations to the state. We reflect that party rule excludes one half of our statesmen from the service of their country, and condemns them,— however wise and capable,-to comparative obscurity and neglect. We grieve that the first minds of every age should have been occupied in collision and angry conflict, instead of labouring together for the common weal.

But, on the other side, we find that government without party is absolutism,—that rulers, without opposition, may be despots. We acknowledge, with gratitude, that we owe to party most of our rights and liberties. We recognise in the fierce contentions of our ancestors, the conflict of great principles, and the final triumph of freedom. We glory in the eloquence and noble sentiments which the rivalry of contending statesmen has inspired. We admire the courage with which power has been resisted; and the manly resolution and persistence by which popular rights have been established. We

observe that, while the undue influence of the crown has been restrained, democracy has been also held in check. We exult in the final success of men who have suffered in a good cause. We admire the generous friendships, fidelity, and self-sacrifice,— akin to loyalty and patriotism, which the honourable sentiments of party have called forth.' We perceive that an opposition may often serve the country far better than a ministry; and that where its principles are right, they will prevail. By argument and discussion truth is discovered, public opinion is expressed, and a free people are trained to self-government. We feel that party is essential to representative institutions. Every interest, principle, opinion, theory, and sentiment, finds expression. The majority governs: but the minority is never without sympathy, representation, and hope. Such being the two opposite aspects of party, who can doubt that good predominates over evil? Who can fail to recognise in party, the very life-blood of freedom?

The best patriots in the greatest commonwealths have always commended and promoted such connections. Idem sentire de republicâ was with them a principal ground of friendship and attachment: nor do I know any other capable of forming firmer, dearer, more pleasing, more honourable, and more virtuous habitudes.'-Burke's Present Discontents, Works, ii. 332.

CHAPTER IX.

FREEDOM OF OPINION THE GREATEST OF LIBERTIES, AND LAST ACQUIRED:-THE PRESS UNDER THE CENSORSHIP, AND AFTERWARDS: -ITS CONTESTS WITH GOVERNMENT EARLY IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. :-WILKES AND JUNIUS-RIGHTS OF JURIES:-MR. FOX'S LIBEL ACT:-PUBLIC MEETINGS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND POLITICAL AGITATION:-PROGRESS OF FREE DISCUSSION, 1760-1792:REACTION CAUSED BY FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ENGLISH DEMO

CRACY:-REPRESSIVE POLICY, 1792-1799:-THE PRESS UNTIL THE

REGENCY.

Freedom of opinion, the greatest of

WE now approach the greatest of all our liberties,liberty of opinion. We have to investigate the development of political discussion, liberties. -to follow its contests with power,-to observe it repressed and discouraged, but gradually prevailing over laws and rulers, until the enlightened judgment of a free people has become the law by which the state is governed.

Freedom in the governed to complain of wrongs,

Free discus

sion the last liberty to be recognised.

and readiness in rulers to redress them, constitute the ideal of a free state. Philo

sophers and statesmen of all ages have asserted the claims of liberty of opinion.' But the

1 Οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τὸν ἥλιον, οὔτε ἐκ τῆς παιδείας ἄρτεον τὴν appnolav.-Socrates, Stobæi Florilegium. Ed. Gaisford, i. 328. Translated thus by Gilbert Wakefield: 'The sun might as easily be spared from the universe, as free speech from the liberal institutions of society.'

Οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη τοῖς ἐλευθέροις μεῖζον ἀτύχημα τοῦ στέρεσθαι τῆς παρpnolas.-Demosthenes. Ibid., 323; translated by the same eminent scholar: No greater calamity could come upon a people than the privation of free speech.'