THE General Baptist Magazine. OCTOBER, 1885. The Claimants for my Vote. Now that two millions of new electors are to be added to the previously existing 3,221,867, the nation is wondering as to the class of men who will be returned to the next Parliament. Great were the apprehensions regarding the Reform Bill of 1832, and the extension of the franchise in 1867 was looked upon even by those who promoted it as "a leap in the dark," but in neither case did the nation come to grief. Those who fear that the multitude will exercise a disastrous choice in the forthcoming election, and send to Parliament mob-orators, mere demagogues, and mean men, will do well to remember that fact. It may be useful, also, to remind them that when, according to Jotham's parable, the trees of the wood went in search of a ruler, their instincts led them first of all to such noble trees as the olive, the fig-tree, and the vine, and it was only when all these failed them that the trees made suit to the worthless bramble. The instincts of the English people have hitherto been of the same healthy kind. The largest constituencies have not always found the worst representatives. On the contrary, Lord Macaulay could say in 1831, that of the nine most distinguished members who in the course of forty years had adorned the House of Commons, eight had been returned by the five towns in which the electors were most numerous. The question, then, as to the class of men likely to be returned to the next Parliament need give us no concern. The question as to which party in the state will secure the majority, is of far greater moment. Shall the country be governed by Conservatives or by Liberals? Will Lord Salisbury be returned to office and to power, or will the reigns of government be placed once more in the hands of Mr. Gladstone? That is the question. "But why?" asks one of the electors. "What does it signify as to which of the two parties prevail, and as to which of the rival leaders shall sit in the box and hold the reins?" To men of easy politics there is not a pin to choose between one party and the other. To them, government is a game of cricket. They think that those who "bat" in one innings should "field" in the next, and that nothing is so much to be dreaded as "a follow on." Men of this sort cast their votes as children throw bread to ducks in a pond. The one which didn't get the last piece shall have the next. Why not? From their point of view such a course is perfectly fair. General Baptist MAGAZINE, OCTOBER, 1885.-Vol. LXXXVII.-N. S. No. 22. 362 THE CLAIMANTS FOR MY VOTE. They assume that both parties have the good of the country at heart,— that neither party has a monopoly of clever men,-and that both can boast of having passed excellent measures. Quite so; but what does it all amount to? All that is a poor stepping-stone to the conclusion that one party is as good as another. Those who have paid attention to the Constitutional history of our country will know, that between the two great parties in the State there are differences of a most vital kind-differences of principle and differences of policy-differences of administrations and differences of spirit as well. THE HISTORY OF PARTY. When, two centuries ago, those who took the side of a Roman Catholic Prince were called after the bog-trotters of Ireland, Tories; and when at the same time the Liberal party of the day were saddled with a name equally offensive, that of "Whigs," a name borrowed from the rustic zealots among the Covenanters of Scotland, was there nothing to correspond to the difference in nicknames? Yea, verily. The parties thus nicknamed represented two widely different principles of government. Authority and prerogative were the watchwords of the one party; the other contended for the rights and privileges of Parliament and the people. The Tories represented the Court; the Whigs stood for the country. They were as different as were the Cavaliers and the Roundheads. To quote Sir Thomas Erskine May, "The Whigs espoused the principles of liberty, the independent rights of Parliament and the people, and the lawfulness of resistance to a king who violated the laws. The Tories maintained the divine and indefeasible right of the king, the supremacy of prerogative, and the duty of passive obedience on the part of the subject. Both parties alike upheld the monarchy; but the Whigs contended for the limitation of its authority within the bounds of law; the principles of the Tories favoured absolutism in Church and State. . . . The Whigs continued to promote every necessary limitation of the royal authority, and to favour religious toleration; the Tories generally leaned to prerogative, to High-Church doctrines, and hostility to Dissenters." Again if we are to be faithful to history, it must also be said that the principles maintained by the respective parties in the State were not more distinct than the parties who maintained them. The Tories consisted mainly of the nobility, the clergy, the country gentlemen, the large farmers, and their dependents. The Whigs found their ranks made up of the middle classes, the Protestant nonconformists, the small freeholders, and the merchants, manufacturers, and skilled workmen in the manufacturing towns. It was not until the earlier half of the present century that the names Whig and Tory gave way respectively to the now generally accepted terms Liberal and Conservative, and that the name Radical came into use. The Conservatives had not then, and they have not now, as much to conserve as they once had, but allowing for the changes of the past two centuries, they embody the old Tory spirit, and the Liberals are the legitimate descendants of the old Whigs. THE CLAIMANTS FOR MY VOTE. 363 Such in brief is the difference between the two great parties whose representatives will shortly claim the votes of the new constituencies. There is therefore considerably more than a pin to choose between them. In the passing exigencies of changing times these parties have been strangely allied and mixed up, and measures which in the nature of things could only have been looked for from one party have been forwarded by the other; but this must not blind us to the fact that between Conservatives and Liberals there is a wide and impassable gulf. No man can say what this particular Conservative or what that individual Liberal will do or say, neither can any man with safety assume that every Nonconformist is a Liberal and that every Churchman is a Tory. Nevertheless the broad fact stands, that Churchmen as a rule are Conservatives, whilst Nonconformists generally are by tradition and by conduct the backbone of the Liberal party. Of course it is open to any individual or to any class to ignore party if so disposed, and to strike out an independent path, just as it is open to some independent seaman to attempt to cross the ocean in a small boat of his own, rather than by the steamer of a great Company; and just as it is open to a solitary traveller to make his own track across the desert, in preference to joining the regular caravan. But under ordinary circumstances it may be assumed that men will act in the ordinary way. They will ally themselves with the Party whose principles they admire, and whose aims they approve. In this way each elector will have a far better chance of attaining the end he has in view, than if he struck out a path of his own: for, as Lord John Russell said, "the waggon arrives at last at its destination; but a loose horse will probably return to the place from which he set out." Each elector, therefore, has placed upon his shoulders a great responsibility. It is no use wishing that Party Government did not exist. It does exist, and it is for us to make the best of it. The bitterness and mutual recrimination which sometimes characterize Party strife may be deplored, but still the fact remains that for the most part the old and new constituents in the coming election will be asked on the one hand to give their votes to Liberals, and on the other to Conservatives. Make your own choice. If I have made it at all clear, by an appeal to the stubborn and incontestable facts of history, that between the principles and practices of these two claimants there is an essential and an irreconcileable difference, I have done all that I set out to do. It is for you to consider it. See that the difference is weighed. Be careful that no electioneering lead is put under either scale. Attend strictly to the weighing of principles. Look to essentials rather than to accidents and surroundings; and if that be done you will not vote in vain. Whatever the issue, as far as the whole country is concerned, whether the Party you are led in your honest judgment to support be or be not fortunate enough to lay hold of the reins, nothing in the world can hinder you from having a hand in managing the brake, and by that means you can at least prevent the Government coach from running on the down grade with reckless and dangerous speed. J. FLETCHER. A Peep at St. Andrews. ONE summer afternoon, we, that is, a companion and myself, left the Waverley station, Edinburgh, by train for Granton Pier. Arriving there in six or eight minutes, we next crossed by steamer the Firth of Forthat that point about five miles wide-to Burntisland, with its sandy beach and dark back-ground of cliffs-a small town which is not an island. There we again took train, and after a run of thirty-nine miles, past Kirkcaldy and Cupar, reached Leuchars Junction, not far from the scene of the terrible Tay Bridge disaster. At Leuchars we changed trains, and soon a short branch line, part of which skirts the famous Links, brought us to the quiet yet most interesting little city of St. Andrews. Having secured comfortable lodgings at Lawrence's Temperance Hotel, and partaken of that Oriental beverage which English travellers always find so refreshing, my companion and I sallied forth for a preliminary survey. St. Andrews stands on a promontory, on a site slightly elevated, and looks due east over a wide bay towards the North Sea. It consists mainly of three broad streets, running almost parallel, and at the end of each of them, looking in a seaward direction, one may observe ruins of the fine old cathedral. Most of the houses have a last century appearance, but a few are new and handsome. Perhaps I cannot do better than briefly describe, as they occur to me, the principal objects of interest we met with on that evening and the two following days. Of First, let me speak of the Cathedral just mentioned. This building when perfect was 358 feet long. The only existing remains are part of the west and east ends, and part of the south wall of the nave. the intervening walls, tower, and columns, there has been a clean sweep, vandal hands in former days having carried away the stones for building purposes. Still, as the reader will see from the engraving on the opposite page, the existing ruins, though scanty, are very picturesque, especially the portion of the west front including the deeply recessed central doorway. Near the Cathedral once stood a famous Abbey or Priory, whose gateway still remains, together with the walls, twenty feet high, which girt the Abbey grounds and now stretch round towards the cliffs overlooking the sea. In the space thus enclosed is a large burying-ground, crossed by walks, where lie the remains of many Scottish worthies of former times. We were greatly interested in observing here, side by side, the graves of the saintly Thomas Halyburton and the famous Samuel Rutherford, the author of the "Letters," one of Scotland's representatives to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and some of whose dying sayings concerning the glory that "dwelleth in Immanuel's land are enshrined in that sweet hymn-"The sands of time are sinking." I was moved to copy the quaint inscription on Rutherford's grave-stone, which runs as follows: "What tongue, what pen or skill of men |