WHO ARE THE LIBERALS.

What is Liberalism, and who are the Liberals ? How do we know a Liberal when we see him, and by what marks is he to be identified? What is the peculiar force of the word as a political designation, and when did it come to signify a party, in which almost all the conventional elements of the thing Liberalism are found to be wanting ?

The good old English denominations of Whig and Tory had a certain distinctive meaning and individual flavour. Every one knew that a Whig was one who steadily believed in the civil and religious liberty which came into England with that distinguished Dutchman, King WILLIAM III. ; and that a Tory was one who, with equal consistency, set himself to oppose everything that was Whig. There was no room for any misapprehension of their respective characters. There was no incongruity between the thing and its name, either etymological, logical, or historical. Having no original meaning at all—at least none that was any more than a local nickname—it was both easy and safe to be either Whig or Tory in the good old days. No one thought of disturbing you with the query—what is a Whig ? or, what is a Tory ? The nation consented to divide itself comfortably into two nearly equal parties, and to conduct its affairs, alternately through one or the other, on the whole, with remarkable success and the happiest results.

Not content to abide by the ancient landmarks, a certain forward party has chosen to dub itself with the fine word "liberal," as if there could be no question of its right to the designation. But again we ask, what is a Liberal, and by what propriety is the term applied ? Has the word itself lost all its primitive meaning, and why is it prostituted to the service of the lowest and least liberal section of all ? A Liberal, in the meaning of men, is one who is not tied to any particular faction ; he is necessarily above all factions ; he is the eclectic philosopher, who scorns "the falsehood of extremes"—who seeks truth in every field, and honours her wherever he finds her—who is raised above the jar of contending principles—who " deals not in watchwords over-much"—who has a mind always open for new opinions, and who, from every new opinion, is able to extract whatever is good in it, and to reject what is the dross and the seeming good. Morally, the true Liberal is the highest name to which a man can attain ; intellectually, it is a designation implying the rarest qualities of mind, improved, enlarged, and adorned by the ripest experience and the best education.

How gross a burlesque is our modern Liberal of such a character ! By what process the name came to be applied to a member of the party which is the narrowest in its feelings, the lowest in its aspirations, the most sordid in its desires, the most ignorant in its aims which pretends to despise knowledge, and would bring down everything superior to its own low level—would be a fair subject of speculation for the Dean of Westminster. Were it not that such designations really do great mischief by accustoming us to an association of two things as far apart as possible, it would not perhaps be worth while to inquire how Liberal came to be applied to a democrat, any more than to ask how " democrat " itself came to be used in its limited and essentially false signification. The main reason for such a word being chosen to designate a very humble and commonplace thing, is, we suppose, identical with that which has turned every shop into an "emporium," and every third-rate actor into an "artist." The propensity to use fine words when the simple Saxon would serve every purpose, is characteristic of that section of society among whom "Liberals" are chiefly to be found. Thus we have members of Parliament speaking of each other as " gentlemen," when they simply mean men—the word "gentlemen" really implying socially what " Liberal" means morally and intellectually.

How far the popular party is entitled to use the term " liberal" in its designation, may be judged from some of its own favourite cries and watchwords. At home, we know that the "Liberals " include the faction of Mr. BRIGHT, who would exclude from his political sympathy all who are not essential to the material welfare of the manufacturing interest—who attributes all our national vices and follies to the aristocracy, and all our virtues and wisdom to the labouring classes—who is unable to separate himself for a single moment from his class antipathies—who sees only one nation in the world which is worthy of his respect, and that nation never his own. In our own country, what are the main points of Liberalism, as professed by these who call themselves Liberals ? A deadly antipathy to the higher social class, a jealousy of all signs of wealth or refinement—a hatred off those who have raised themselves to comparative affluence by their own industry or the accident of fortune—a desire to make all legislation turn to their own direct benefit—an utter incapacity to look beyond their immediate interests to the wider object of the future and permanent good of the country—these are the chief indications of the party which calls itself the Liberal, par excellence. Not ashamed to take up the dirty old clothes of the worst of Tories, as in its fanatic cry for "protection," it assumes to be "Liberal." Tied to the narrowest and most sordid views of the rights of labour, and the laws of demand and supply, it ever styles itself "Liberal." Railing against banks and aristocrats—the one being a myth and the other but the aggregate deposits of industry—it is still Liberal, and everybody and everything else are illiberal.

The falsity of the designation being in this case transparent, it may be said that the mischief of its use becomes infinitesimal. But if it is only for the reproach brought upon a noble word, we protest against " Liberal " being applied to the party which is the opposite of liberality, of knowledge, of independent thought, and elevated sentiment. As it is applied in our case, it is but a vulgar nickname, and means no more to us than one of the uncouth designations under which American politicians delight to hide their mystical differences —than HUNKER or BARN-BURNER, SOFT-SHELL or HARD SHELL, KNOW-NOTHING or LOCOFOCO. There was a time, no doubt, in the history of England, when "Liberal" was a just distinction enough for those who opposed the blind Toryism of the old days, " when GEORGE the Third was king." When ELDON represented the national conscience and CASTLEREAGH the national intelligence, any party was liberal which was antagonistic to their principles and their policy. But the advance of civilization has wiped out nearly all the land-marks of the historical parties. The old antagonism may continue between two great powers in the state, but there is no longer the old distinctions. The Tories, or those who represent that party in modern political warfare, are a race as different as possible from their correlatives in history,—with principles which would startle BOLINGBROKE and make ELDON stare and gasp. The policy of Lord DERBY is not easily to be distinguished from that of Lord PALMERSTON. For true "Liberalism," perhaps the modern Conservative, as represented by such a man as Lord STANLEY, or even by Mr. DISRAELI, is more eminent than the real old historical Whig, supposing such a character to be still extant. The truth is, that the progress of men's minds has broken up many of the old party traditions. The triumph of what was once the Liberal cause has been followed, according to the inevitable law, by a stagnation of the party under whose name it was effected. There are very few of the old principles which still remain to be fought for, so the champions have gone to sleep, and have given place to the newer party, which, deriving its instincts from the old party of order, is now really the party of progress. The strong conservative reaction, which is one of the marked signs of the times in Europe, is, in fact, only a protest against the sham Liberalism which in England is content to babble about ballot and parliamentary reform, and in America has produced the grandest political fiasco which the world ever saw. And Victoria would be wise to choose her own Liberalism, without reference to the old country traditions. She has no occasion to borrow any political names from England, and ought by this time to have produced some more significant designations than those which serve to divide her parties.

 The Argus 28 March 1862,