THE PROGRAMME OF THE RADICALS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 51, 18 April 1874, Page 11

THE PROGRAMME OF THE RADICALS.

lir a late number of the * Quarterly Review," appears an essay aeciibcd to Lord Salisbury, on "The Programme of the Radicals." The Conservative ' Free-lance' does good work for his party in this essay. Analysing with the forcible sarcasm of which he is a master the Radical demands for " Free Labour," " Free Land," " Free Schools," a^nd a " Free Church," he pbly exposes the dangers to which Moderate Liberals are subject by being continually made the too's and catspaws of the Extreme Left. A brilliant passage relates to the unholy alliance being cemented between the Infidel and Dissenting interests :— " There is one feature in the new programme which is remarkable, •3 showing the increasing community of purpose that knits together English and Continental Radicals. The agitation for a godless education — ' l'inal ruction laique, gratuite et obligatoire " — does not on the Continent proceed from* those who dissent from the dominant religion. The Protestants talce little part in it. It is the distinguishing cry of those who are hostile to all religion — those who have had the lamentable courage to banish not only the ministers, but the barest mention cf religion, from the grave-side of their friends, and to make this wretched bravado a point of party orthodoxy. So it is coming to be iv England. Tho agitation against denominational education, which was commenced by Dissenters, is gliding gradually into stronger hands. The Birmingham League began by advocating " unsectaiian education " : which, in iis vocabulary, means to cay, a religious education in which the English Church shall have no shnia. But the compromise «m soon found to be politically unwoikablc : and the Dissenters, in the teeth of their whole religious history, allowed themselves to be pledged to the cau.-e of secular education. But, in changing it* flag' the League is changing its sDirit. It appeals to free-thinking, not to Dissenting, sympathies. Its most earnest advocates art) prominent writ eis in the 'JFoitnightly .Review.' Their arguments are political and pluli soplnca', not religious. Their antipathy to the Church is not based up >n h (j r errors in those points wherein Dissenting bodies differ from lur ; but on lior opposition to the free-thinking and i,ubversive tendencies of the ' j'arty of action.' Mr Chamberlain, in the passage c bave cited, st lives to inflame tho working classes against the Chun-h expre-sly, not upon theological but upon political grounds. The argument that endy.unents paralyze the spiiitual activity of the Church has disappeared ; on the contrary, her uctivity is the one thing to be deprecated now. It is not the endowments of the Church, but the Church itself us a body teaching dogmatic religion, and suppor'infr the < auso of social order, that is the object of nntipathy to the Liberals of t' c League. " This vnion of the Dissenters and the Infidels is one among th>» moDy unnaiiiiul ulliance9 which aro so potent an instrument for destruction in our clay. It is easy to combine on a mciv negative. Numbers who have no liking in common can agree upon -what they liate ; and tluy seem to think that bucli a bond of uuiou is sufficient to justify political combination. In such monstrous partnerships there is alwo\B an element of trencher/. There U aJways on each side n full intention thut at the close of the operation the other side of the alliapce shall not keep the chestnuts. The fruits of victory cannot be divided between parties who are diametrically opposed j they muse bo appropiiated wholly for the benefit of one ally or the The only

interesting question is, which shall succeed in deceiving his friend ? The honest Dissenter does not wish for the success of the Infidel ; tho Infidel assuredly has no intention of promoting the religious doctrines) of the Dissenter. But they combine to assail the Church, which, for different reasons, is in their way ; and each party flatters itself that

the other has miscalculated, and that the reward of their combined efforts will fall to it. No student of history can have any doubt which of these two calculations will prove correct. In a combined movement against established institutions it is not the Girondina who win. -(Pp. 666, 567.)" Especially Lord Salisbury appeals to the Moderate Liberals who " give money, men, above all, respectability and credit," to Liberalism, to let themselves no longer be deceived by part} shibboleths to do a work which nothing but " party superstition " could impose upon them. " Look abroad upon the kingdoms of Europe, and see what battle it is that is raging amongst them. We may follow there, in luril intensity, the outline of the strife which more dimly threatens us at home. It is true that the watchwords used are not precisely the same. A more delicate perception of the meaning of words would prevent a Continental audience from accepting the doclaraatory rubbish which is in vogue upon many English platforms. They cannot imitate our bold treatment of the fascinating aljoctire " free." They would not understand how compulsory secular education could be advocated under the name of '• fre« school ; " they would not designate a measure for restricting the rights of landowners as " free lund ; " nor would it occur to them to preach as " free labour " provisions for facilitating the breach of contracts, and tho coercion of independent labourers into involuntary strikes. But though the words they use are less misleading and more apt, the meaning is tho same. Instruction from which religion shall be banished ; legislation, which, in some fashion or other, shall bestow upon the artizan a elnre of the land and of the capital he envies, are the dretiir of vast multitudes abroad; and they are the chimeras towards which the new agitators would mislead our working classes here. The only difference is, that portions of the Radical programme, which are only a hope to the Radicals of England, are a reality there. — (P. 573 )