4

ORIGIN OF POLITICAL NICKNAMES.

the old lines of the constitution; the other, upon the principle of adapting the constitution to the wants and tendencies of the age. The one put forward its loyalty to the Crown; the other declared its reverence for the people. The arbitrary government of the Stuarts accentuated the differences between the two parties; and the Revolution of 1688 rendered their reconciliation or amalgamation impossible. About eight years before that great event, the latter party had come to be known as Whigs, and the former as Tories; appellations which have survived to the present day, though now giving place to the more intelligible terms of Liberals and Conservatives. At the outset these appellations were intended as nicknames. A 'Whig' was the sobriquet of the Lowland peasantry of Western Scotland; derived from a word or call they addressed to their horses, or else from a kind of acetous liquor, somewhat resembling sour cream, which they were accustomed to drink. It was afterwards applied to the roving Covenanters, who took up arms against the Crown, upon the murder of Archbishop Sharpe, and were finally defeated at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge (1679). Thence it was fastened as a reproach on politicians who evinced a desire to tolerate Nonconformity, and opposed the despotic measures of the Court. In return, the opposite party were styled Tories',* and were thus likened to the marauding and rebellious Irish outlaws who, as Roman Catholics, harassed the Protestant colony in Ireland. The immediate occasion of the use of these opprobrious de

* From Tora, tora, "give, give."

"WHIGS" AND "TORIES."

signations was the reputed discovery of the Meal-tub Plot, contrived by the infamous Dangerfield, in 1679. In the course of the political intrigues which followed, intended to secure the succession of the Duke of Monmouth to the throne, a host of petitions was sent up from the country in favour of the immediate meeting of the Parliament. These were answered by an equal number of addresses declaring 'abhorrence' of the plot against the Crown. The country was thus divided into two great factions of petitioners' and 'abhorrers; ' who, before long, were known as 'Whigs' and 'Tories.'

The two names, absurd as was their origin, passed rapidly into general acceptance, and by those who bore them were welcomed as honourable distinctions. It must be admitted, however, that they have ceased, save in a limited degree, to represent the ideas they once represented. Or if we allow that the traditions of the Whig party have undergone no great change, at all events the Tory of Queen Victoria's reign would scarcely call himself a kinsman of the Tory of Queen Anne's. It is doubtful even whether Lord Macaulay's assertion is correct that, though the absolute position of the two parties has been altered, their relative position remains unchanged. "Through the whole of that great movement," says the Whig historian, "which began before those party-names existed, and which will continue after they have become obsolete, through the whole of that great movement of which the Charter of John, the institution of the House of Commons, the extinction of Villenage, the separation from the see of Rome, the

6

IMPORTANCE OF PARTY GOVERNMENT.

expulsion of the Stuarts, the reform of the Representative system, are successive stages, there have been, under some name or other, two sets of men, those who were before their age, and those who were behind it, those who were the wisest among their contemporaries, and those who gloried in being no wiser than their great-grandfathers." This is brilliantly antithetical, but it is scarcely true, or is certainly ceasing to be true; for now that the great constitutional reforms have been accomplished, now that the principles of civil and religious freedom have been successfully vindicated, the two great parties manifest a certain tendency to approximate to each other. No doubt, there are signs that a new departure will soon take place, and politicians once more array themselves in opposite and hostile camps; but it may safely be predicted that to these the old party-names of Whig and Tory will no longer be applicable.

Meanwhile it is hardly too much to say that Party Government—that is, government in accordance with the will of a majority of the popular branch of the legislature, which is assumed to represent the will of the majority of the people-is the vital element of the British Constitution; and that its existence among us has preserved the nation from despotism on the one hand, and revolution on the other. It has rendered movement and progress possible, while it has prevented that movement and that progress from becoming too violent, from being injudiciously accelerated. It has ensured a careful discussion of every measure of reform,

THE LEADERS OF ENGLISH PARTIES.

7

and prepared the nation to accept it without reluctance. That it has its evils may be conceded; but these are really unconsidered trifles' when compared with its advantages. If it did nothing more than preserve the freshness of political life, and fix the attention of the people on legislative action, its profit would be enormous. But that it has succeeded so well among us, that it has remained 'party' and not 'factious' government, is due to the high character, the commanding intellectual force, and the elevated patriotism of the great Englishmen into whose hands it has fallen. Had our Party-leaders been of a less noble type, Party Government might have proved a failure. It is doubtful whether any nation has produced such a succession of high-minded statesmen as those who have administered the affairs of Great Britain, in office or out of office, since the days of Walpole. They may not always have been blind to the interests of their party, or insensible to the attraction of power and place, but on the whole they have steadily pursued the welfare of England, and to this consideration every other has been subordinated. We propose, therefore, in the following pages to sketch the lives of some of our most eminent Party-leaders, and to place before our readers a summary of the history of Party Government, in the hope that by so doing we may contribute to popularise the study of politics, and revive the recollection of 'men and measures' that ought never to be forgotten.

We begin with Sir ROBERT WALPOLE, whom we take to have been, in the modern sense of the phrase, the first

8 ORIGIN OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

great Party-leader. There were party politicians before his time-Whig politicians and Tory politicians, a Somers and a Sunderland, a Harley and a Bolingbroke,—but no one man who stood out conspicuously and indisputably as the leader of his party in the House of Commons and its representative in the country.

We acknowledge, however, that the Party Government which he so effectively employed was not his invention. We owe it to Robert, Earl of Sunderland. It was he who advised William the 3rd to recognise and utilise the power acquired by the House of Commons at the Revolution, by selecting his Ministers from the members of the majority in that House. Previously, no 'Ministry', as we now understand the term, had existed. The great officers of State had been the King's servants, and had been responsible only to the King. Now and again, indeed, one among them, like Clarendon or Shaftesbury, had risen above his colleagues by strength of will and power of intellect; but he had never been recognised as officially their superior. If he resigned, his colleagues did not resign with him.* King appointed or dismissed whomsoever he chose, without reference to the wishes or opinions of the Ministry as a body. But Sunderland saw the necessity for ensuring a representation of the majority in the legislature, and for obtaining a solidarity and a homogeneity of sentiment in the Ministry that would result in united action. The innovation did not seem very important on the surface; but in reality it affected the whole system

The

* Cabinet responsibility, as distinguished from departmental responsibility, was not fully established for a century later.