— THE CHARACTER OF THE WHIGS AND TORIES '%

London, May 14. Palmerston’s private organ, The Morning Post,
today carries a threatening article against Prussia,” which includes
the following:

“It was in the month of April, 1854, that permission was given, by an Order in
Council, to import Russian produce into the United Kingdom in neutral bottoms,
and of this permission we find that Prussia availed herself with astonishing rapidity.
The following returns” (taken from official tables presented to Parliament) “will
show the comparative amount of our imports of tallow, hemp, and flax, from the
last-named country, during the years 1853 and 1854; the difference clearly
indicating’ the quantity of Russian produce which has found its way through Memel
and Danzig to the British market, notwithstanding our strict blockade of the
Russian ports” in the Baltic:

“Imported from Prussia into the United Kingdom

1853 1854
Tallow 54 cwts 253,955 cwts
Hemp 3,447” 366,220”
Flax 242,383 ” 667,879 ”
Flax- and linseed 57,848 qrs 116,267 qrs

“These figures sufficiently indicate the value of this new traffic to Prussia [...].
The result is that in spite of our blockade Russia is enabled to sell her produce as freely
as in time of peace, while we have to pay some 50 per cent more for it, in the shape of
dues and profits to the Prussian trader [...].We admit that our present policy is grossly
inconsistent, but the remedy is to be sought not by raising the blockade of the enemy’s
ports, but by stopping to the utmost of our power the overland traffic through the
Prussian dominions.”

a The Morning Post, No. 25386, May 14, 1855.— Ed.

The anti-aristocratic movement-in England can only have one
immediate result: to bring the Tories, i. e. the specifically aristocratic
party, to the helm. If not, it must necessarily subside at first into a
few Whig platitudes, a few administrative mock-reforms not worth
mentioning. Layard’s announcement of his motion on the “state of
the nation”* and the reception that announcement received in the
House of Commons, produced the City meetings. But close on the
heels of the City meetings followed Ellenborough’s motion  in
the House of Lords,” whereby the Tories appropriate the new
reform agitation, and transform it into a ladder to office. Layard
himself has altered the words “aristocratic influence” in his motion
to “family influence’—a concession to the Tories. Every movement
outside the House assumes, inside the House, the form of the
squabble between the two factions of the governing class. In the
hands of the Whigs the Anti-Corn Law League became a means of
bringing down the Tories.’’’ In the hands of the Tories, the
Administrative Reform Association '? became a means of bringing
down the Whigs. Only one must not forget that in this way one
base of the old regime after another was sacrificed alternately by
the two factions—and the regime itself remained intact, we may
add. We have already stated our view that only the Tories are
forced to make major concessions, because only under them does
the pressure from without assume a threatening, indeed revolutionising character.“ The Whigs represent the real oligarchy in
England, the domination of a few great families such as the
Sutherlands, Bedfords, Carlisles, Devonshires, etc.; the Tories
represent the squireocracy,* they are the Junker party, if you will,
although broad demarcation lines must be drawn between the
English squire and the North German Junker. The Tories are
therefore the receptacles of all the old English prejudices
regarding Church and State, protection and anti-Catholicism. The
Whigs, the oligarchs, are enlightened, and have never hesitated to
discard prejudices standing in the way of their hereditary tenancy
of the offices of state. By their friendship the Whigs have
constantly prevented the middle classes from moving; by their
friendship the Tories have always thrown the masses into the arms
of the middle classes, who put them at the disposal of the Whigs...

* A. H. Layard’s speech in the House of Commons on April 27, 1855. The Times,
No. 22040, April 28, 1855.— Ed.

sO 0 Ellenborough’s speech in the House of Lords on May 14, 1855. The Times,
No. 22054, May 15, 1855.— Ed.

“ See this volume, pp. 50-51.— Ed.

4 Marx uses the English word.— Ed.

At the present moment there is no longer any difference between
Whigs and Tories except that the latter represent the plebs of the
aristocracy and the former its haute-volée* The old aristocratic
phrase is on the side of the aristocratic plebs; the liberal phrase on
the side of the aristocratic haute-volée: In fact, however, since the
High Tories (Lord Bolingbroke, etc.) quit the scene the Tory Party
has always been ruled by parvenus such as Pitt, Addington,
Perceval, Canning, Peel and Disraeli. The homines novi? were
always to be found in the ranks of the Tories. When Derby
(himself a renegade Whig) formed his ministry, it contained, apart
from himself, perhaps two other old names. All the others were
plain squires plus one man of letters. On the other hand, the
Whigs, who never hesitated for a moment to trim their sails and
their views to the wind and who apparently forever renewed and
metamorphosed themselves, needed no new men. They were able
to perpetuate the family names. If one surveys English history
since the “glorious” revolution of 1688, one finds that all the laws
directed against the mass of the people have been initiated by the
Whigs, from the Act for a Seven-Year Parliament to the latest
Workhouse '” and Factory legislation. But the Whig reaction has
always taken place in agreement with the middle classes. The Tory
reaction has been directed even more against the middle class than
against the masses. Hence the Whigs’ reputation for liberality.

: ; first time
Marked with the sign X

* Upper crust.— Ed.
New men.— Ed.