if all the food of the country were raised within its four seas. In one direction indeed, as we have already said, we think the nation might limit its habit of self-seeking by giving it a definite goal, and by encouraging the 'cheap defence' of the empire. We now hear, for instance, of eighty tenant farmers leaving their country for Texas; but under a really Imperial system would they not certainly betake themselves, with their capital and industry, to Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, and thus preserve their allegiance to the Queen?

These, then, are the principles which appear to us to be at stake. Our Imperial system exists by the harmonious action of centrifugal and centripetal forces. The liberties of the subject, asserted ages ago in England, have laid the foundations for a great empire composed of free but loyal societies in all parts of the world. The unity of this empire consists solely in the allegiance of all the parts to one sovereign, who is the visible representative of the historic liberties of the race. Were the centrifugal principles of local liberty to operate alone, it is plain that the union of the parts could no longer be maintained. We stand now at the parting of two political ways. Within the next twenty years the nation will have irrevocably decided what direction its' progress' is to take; it will have pronounced for the Conservative policy of constitutional development, or for the Radical programme of revolutionary change; we shall know whether the Empire is to be consolidated or dismembered; whether the connection between Church and State is to be strengthened or severed; whether the form of our Government is to be a Monarchy or a Republic; in a word, whether our principle of self-government is to be that of a society in which classes and individuals are willing to co-operate for the common welfare, or of one in which every one seeks to advance himself at the expense of his neighbour. We wait with confidence, though not without anxiety, to observe the attitude of the constituencies at the next general election. The judgment of the nation will have to be given during a period of unexampled depression, and while it is a prey to the discontented feelings which such times never fail to produce. But, as Swift says, the people naturally love the Constitution under which they live.' So long as the real issues are fairly set before them, we believe that the political instinct of Englishmen will enable them to form a just opinion of the circumstances in which they are placed.

Such being the case, a grave responsibility will rest upon the Whigs. The Whigs appear throughout English history in the twofold capacity of patriots and partisans, and it is only in the


former capacity that they deserve admiration. History pays a tribute to their conduct in 1688, but it gives the Whigs little credit for their behaviour to the sovereign in 1784, and still less for their disloyalty to their country during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War. It does not forget nor forgive their depreciation of our successes in the Peninsula, and their unpatriotic lamentations over the crowning victory of Waterloo. Again, it does full justice to their statesmanlike adroitness in settling the Reform Question in 1832, and applauds the firmness of Lord Grey in resisting the pressure of the Radicals after Reform had been secured. But its opinion of the part played by Lord John Russell in 1846, in the matter of the Coercion Bill for Ireland, is not high; and its verdict on the conduct of the Whigs during the recent crisis remains to be delivered.

We can understand, if we cannot admire, the attitude maintained by Lord Granville and Lord Hartington towards the Government for the last three years. Their national instincts as men of patriotism have been checked by their necessities as party leaders. But the time has come when it is no longer possible for them to play the part of waiters upon Providence. They must decide for their country or their party, and cast their vote for a Conservative or a Radical policy. If they elect for the former their course is plain. They will say that, however much they may have disagreed with the recent policy of the Government, the question is now settled, and that they will carry out, as loyally as the Tories, the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, the Treaty of Gandamuk, and the Anglo-Turkish Convention. They will profess that they are ready to maintain the national establishments in such a state of efficiency as to provide for the full defence of the Empire; that they desire to preserve the connection between Church and State; and that they will uphold to their full extent the ancient prerogatives of the Crown. Such a courageous declaration of principle would of course deprive them of the support of the Radicals.

But it may be that the old oligarchical instincts will prevail, and that, true to their old motto, Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven,' they will endeavour to come to some understanding with the Radicals. Nor are there wanting indications that this is the course they are likely to pursue. The character of their policy through the Eastern crisis, in which they always spoke, though they sometimes abstained from voting, with the Radicals; the utterances of Lord Hartington and Mr. Adam, which made all the world suppose that an assault was about to be delivered against the Scotch Establishment; the ambiguous speech of the Liberal leader on the Land Question; and, above


all, his complete and unequivocal surrender to Mr. Chamberlain in the Flogging' episode these things show how much initiative comes from the Whig section of the Liberal party. But if the Whigs were to regain place by a composition with the Radicals, they might indeed reign, but they would not govern. They would be in the same unhappy and dependent position as they occupied between 1832-1841, the nominal heads of a coalition composed of their own followers, the Radicals, and the Irish, which would be liable to dissolution at a moment's notice. Mr. Parnell has frankly told Lord Hartington what is expected of him under such circumstances. 'He had remarked that Lord Hartington was under the impression that they would treat him and his party if they came into power to the same physic with which they had treated the Tories. But it was a mistake, because when the Whigs got office they would have a much easier and more efficacious way of reducing them.' And the Radicals also take care to show him that they mean to keep an eye upon his conduct. In the course of the debate on Mr. Chaplin's motion, Lord Hartington said:

'I do not venture to express any confident opinion whether under our social system it would be possible by any legitimate means to create a large class of small proprietors; but it seems not wise to maintain, if you could avoid doing so, a system of law which makes the transfer of land so difficult and so expensive to small proprietors.'

We are sure that if Conservative statesmen had chosen to deal with the question raised by the leader of the Opposition they would not have approached it in this timid and halting fashion. 'It would not be wise to maintain, if you could avoid doing so'! Of course it would not. What man in his senses is anxious to preserve a system of transfer which benefits nobody but the lawyers? Nevertheless the fact remains, that Conservative as well as Liberal Governments have attempted vainly to solve a problem which seems to baffle human ingenuity. Conservatives, again, would certainly not be slow to welcome the accession to their numbers which would be made by a large class of small proprietors, if it were possible to create such by any legitimate means,' that is to say, without interfering with liberty, or the rights of property. A question more unlikely to raise a party issue it is difficult to conceive. Nevertheless the editor of a Radical journal pounced down upon the words with an air of severe exultation. The phrase 'small proprietors' was quite enough for him. These words,' said he,suggest the possibility of a considerable area of united action for the Liberal party in the not remote future. They have been uttered; they


cannot be recalled; they indicate an politics.' And he

and if they are not wholly meaningless, entirely new departure in contemporary proceeded to show what the Radicals expect from this new departure, by dwelling on the benefits which would be derived from State intervention in the contract between landlord and tenant! Surely facts like these ought either to open the eyes of the Whigs as to their relations with the Radicals, or to open the eyes of the country to the character of the Whigs. Here are two sets of politicians using the same phrases about 'peace, retrenchment, and reform,' and the transfer of land, to signify utterly different things, and acting in apparent union while disagreeing with each other on almost every conceivable subject. And this monstrous alliance the Whigs maintain for the sole purpose of a party triumph over opponents from whom they, differ merely on points of detail. As we have already said, Lord Granville and Lord Hartington must speak more plainly, or they will justly incur the charge of being what Johnson long ago called their political ancestors, 'bottomless Whigs.'

The duty of Conservative voters-and by the word Conservative we have endeavoured to show that we mean all those who care for the Constitution-is clear. The return of a majority united merely in name, the leaders of which would distrust and be distrusted by their followers, and be able to govern only with the assistance of their opponents, would at the present crisis of our affairs be particularly disastrous. In the state of politics abroad, and with widespread distress at home, what the country wants is a Government strong enough in the support of the people to check the attempts of foreign ambition, and independent enough to despise the intrigues of domestic treason. The present Ministry have shown that they are determined to maintain the just influence of England in the councils of Europe, and that they are anxious by sober but useful legislation to improve the domestic condition of the people. We believe that the nation has confidence in their policy, and that at the next election it will give them a majority sufficient to enable Her Majesty to maintain the high standard of prosperity which has hitherto distinguished her long and glorious reign.






ABEL, John, his monument in the
churchyard of Sarnesfield, 173.
Achæans, the, used as mediators, 190-
their equity and kindliness, 191-
difficulties with the Spartans, 193—
moderation and political honesty,
194-they call in the aid of Mace-
don, 195-embrace the friendship of
Rome, 199.

Etolians, the, 195, 196.

Afghanistan, the war with, 573.
America, North, marks of glaciation

in, 230-proofs of submersion, 231.
Apple, the culture of, in Herefordshire,
175, 176.

Army, the, increased expenditure in,
causes of, 576, 577.

Arnold, Matthew, his 'Mixed Essays,'

[blocks in formation]

Bastwick, Dr. John, 368.

Beard, Mr., on Pascal's originality,

Beauvilliers, Marie de, and Henry IV.
of France, 521, 522.
Beethoven, his Eroica' symphony,

-early youth, 78-deafness, 79-
voluminous correspondence, 81-let-
ter to Broadwood, ib.-his Battle
Symphony,' 82.

Bell of Marden, the submerged, 179.
Bennett, Mr. G., his attempt to an-
nounce storms to Europe, 498.
Bible Society, the London, in Russia,

Birch, Col. John, his purchases and
speculations in Herefordshire, 172.
Blair, Hugh, his character described,

Blocks, travelled, or perched, found in

Europe, 226, 227-and in other
countries, 250.

Blount, Thomas, the antiquary, 173—
his history of Herefordshire, 174.
Boeotians, the, their social disorders,

Brampton Bryan Castle, 159.
Braxfield, Judge, described, 271.
Burke, compared with Joseph de
Maistre, 433.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Casar, Froude's, 453-analogy with
the present time, 454-his Gallic
campaigns, 455- compact with
Pompey, 459-his actions as consul
illegal and unconstitutional, 460
-Dean Merivale's judgment of
his character, 467-Froude's pane-
2 s

« VorigeDoorgaan »