the matter of land tenure there is surely nothing to alarm them into defection. This exception may perhaps be called a large one, but the apprehensions of change are as yet most indefinite. That existing restrictions of an irksome kind will be removed can hardly be doubtful, or that such removal will be as much to the advantage of landlord as of tenant. If any restrictions should be imposed on the landlord, there seems as yet at any rate no cause to imagine that the country will see reason for making these more than good landlords are already willing to impose on themselves. Whatever the proposed changes may be, they will at least be discussed in an atmosphere as different as possible from that which enveloped the Irish measure. The abnormal political and social conditions of Ireland are happily not present here to influence the decision of such matters by the deliberate judgment of the people of Great Britain. The bulk of this people are not, like the Irish, tenant-farmers, and, as arbiters in such a question, would desire only that the land should be worked to the best advantage of all concerned in it (that is, ultimately, the whole population) with the least possible interference with the laws of political economy. These can hardly be held to include either the law of primogeniture or the law of distress. The relief of the landlord from the necessity of overburdening his estate to make provision for the otherwise disinherited members of his family, and the increase of security for tenants, have both the same object of facilitating the mutual approach of capital and land. And to such comparatively limited extent as English landlords are absentees or leave improvements to be made by their tenants, this would seem to be generally owing to the restrictions of settlement which prevent the consolidation of their dispersed estates and the free employment of capital now diverted from returning to the soil from which it came.

As to the extension of the county franchise, this has been already accepted by the Whigs, mindful of their mistake in 1866, and recognising the fact that, after all, it is impossible that it should be enough for any class of the people with important class interests merely to be spoken for, itself being denied a voice. Nor have they failed to acknowledge the need of a reorganisation of county government, whenever that pressing question can be attended to; and this is a matter in which their position and experience will give them both peculiar authority in any loyal co-operation with a measure of reform, and peculiar credit for whatever success may be obtained. Their support of the Ground Game Bill was an encouraging sign that Whig country gentlemen are not disposed to deal illiberally with their rural neighbours.

The question of far the greatest moment and urgency at the present hour, the restoration of order in Ireland, ought assuredly, by all the most sacred obligations of patriotism, to be no party or class question. But whatever demand may of stern necessity be made for stronger and more summary expedients for restoring order, there is

standing of the mere conduct of measures will rapidly diminish now that the most advanced Liberals are admitted to the experience of office. But, unless the temper of the English people should change its hitherto inherent characteristics, it can hardly be thought that the Whig families need, except by their own fault, find their position of less promise, dignity, or opportunity with the slow advance of democratic change. Whatever the faults of our 'middle' and 'lower' classes, an exaggerated passion for equality is not one; and if they are somewhat over-prone to take the fine name for the fine thing, and to imagine that there must needs be something noble in a nobility, it is a not wholly untoward instinct which makes them ready, if only as a convenience, to continue their confidence in names which are politically familiar to them, and imply the stake of an hereditary reputation to be enhanced or impaired. Of course nothing can be more odious or contemptible than a theatrical condescension to the work of statesmanship or an air of patronage toward the common weal. The public would perhaps be sooner alienated by a general impression of this kind, which they are quick to feel, than by hesitation in particular reforms as to which they are conscious of their own imperfect information. But faults of this kind can seldom be laid with fairness to the charge of official Whigs, dull as they often have shown themselves in discovering that political trust might be reposed outside their own circle. There is fortunately something in the responsible conduct of the vast and complex affairs dealt with by English politics which seldom fails to force home on any intelligence not hopelessly straitened or perverse a sense of this vastness and complexity such as leaves little room for self-delusive affectations. And the more important and critical the work to be carried through, the more do disinterestedness and simplicity of character tell. It was generally allowed that the passing of the Reform Act owed more to Lord Althorp than to any other statesman, and this more by virtue of his character than of his intellectual powers. Assuredly there has been no English statesman of whom either his party or his country have more cause to be proud, nor yet any with less pride himself.

All these reasons against the withdrawal of Liberal confidence from the Whigs are also valid as addressed to the Whigs themselves, for they tend to show that the rest of the party would not be justified in forcing secession upon them, and that so far therefore they need not fear that their present opportunities of public service will be taken from them. There are other considerations which may be recalled more particularly to them. Except certain possibilities in

1 I remember to have heard, from those familiar with the unwritten history of the Reform of 1832 that at the most critical stage of the struggle, when there seemed to be danger of civil war, some of the most thoughtful as well as most ardent among the Radical supporters of the Bill within and outside of Parliament actually came, under the pressure of the moment's anxiety, to urge the Ministry to withdraw it. This was certainly from no half-heartedness in the matter, but simply from a want

the matter of land tenure there is surely nothing to alarm them into defection. This exception may perhaps be called a large one, but the apprehensions of change are as yet most indefinite. That existing restrictions of an irksome kind will be removed can hardly be doubtful, or that such removal will be as much to the advantage of landlord as of tenant. If any restrictions should be imposed on the landlord, there seems as yet at any rate no cause to imagine that the country will see reason for making these more than good landlords are already willing to impose on themselves. Whatever the proposed changes may be, they will at least be discussed in an atmosphere as different as possible from that which enveloped the Irish measure. The abnormal political and social conditions of Ireland are happily not present here to influence the decision of such matters by the deliberate judgment of the people of Great Britain. The bulk of this people are not, like the Irish, tenant-farmers, and, as arbiters in such a question, would desire only that the land should be worked to the best advantage of all concerned in it (that is, ultimately, the whole population) with the least possible interference with the laws of political economy. These can hardly be held to include either the law of primogeniture or the law of distress. The relief of the landlord from the necessity of overburdening his estate to make provision for the otherwise disinherited members of his family, and the increase of security for tenants, have both the same object of facilitating the mutual approach of capital and land. And to such comparatively limited extent as English landlords are absentees or leave improvements to be made by their tenants, this would seem to be generally owing to the restrictions of settlement which prevent the consolidation of their dispersed estates and the free employment of capital now diverted from returning to the soil from which it came.

As to the extension of the county franchise, this has been already accepted by the Whigs, mindful of their mistake in 1866, and recognising the fact that, after all, it is impossible that it should be enough for any class of the people with important class interests merely to be spoken for, itself being denied a voice. Nor have they failed to acknowledge the need of a reorganisation of county government, whenever that pressing question can be attended to; and this is a matter in which their position and experience will give them both peculiar authority in any loyal co-operation with a measure of reform, and peculiar credit for whatever success may be obtained. Their support of the Ground Game Bill was an encouraging sign that Whig country gentlemen are not disposed to deal illiberally with their rural neighbours.

The question of far the greatest moment and urgency at the present hour, the restoration of order in Ireland, ought assuredly, by all the most sacred obligations of patriotism, to be no party or class question. But whatever demand may of stern necessity be made for stronger and more summary expedients for restoring order, there is

standing of the mere conduct of measures will rapidly diminish now that the most advanced Liberals are admitted to the experience of office. But, unless the temper of the English people should change its hitherto inherent characteristics, it can hardly be thought that the Whig families need, except by their own fault, find their position of less promise, dignity, or opportunity with the slow advance of democratic change. Whatever the faults of our 'middle' and 'lower classes, an exaggerated passion for equality is not one; and if they are somewhat over-prone to take the fine name for the fine thing, and to imagine that there must needs be something noble in a nobility, it is a not wholly untoward instinct which makes them ready, if only as a convenience, to continue their confidence in names which are politically familiar to them, and imply the stake of an hereditary reputation to be enhanced or impaired. Of course nothing can be more odious or contemptible than a theatrical condescension to the work of statesmanship or an air of patronage toward the common weal. The public would perhaps be sooner alienated by a general impression of this kind, which they are quick to feel, than by hesitation in particular reforms as to which they are conscious of their own imperfect information. But faults of this kind can seldom be laid with fairness to the charge of official Whigs, dull as they often have shown themselves in discovering that political trust might be reposed outside their own circle. There is fortunately something in the responsible conduct of the vast and complex affairs dealt with by English politics which seldom fails to force home on any intelligence not hopelessly straitened or perverse a sense of this vastness and complexity such as leaves little room for self-delusive affectations. And the more important and critical the work to be carried through, the more do disinterestedness and simplicity of character tell. It was generally allowed that the passing of the Reform Act owed more to Lord Althorp than to any other statesman, and this more by virtue of his character than of his intellectual powers. Assuredly there has been no English statesman of whom either his party or his country have more cause to be proud, nor yet any with less pride himself.

All these reasons against the withdrawal of Liberal confidence from the Whigs are also valid as addressed to the Whigs themselves, for they tend to show that the rest of the party would not be justified in forcing secession upon them, and that so far therefore they need not fear that their present opportunities of public service will be taken from them. There are other considerations which may be recalled more particularly to them. Except certain possibilities in

1 I remember to have heard, from those familiar with the unwritten history of the Reform of 1832 that at the most critical stage of the struggle, when there seemed to be danger of civil war, some of the most thoughtful as well as most ardent among the Radical supporters of the Bill within and outside of Parliament actually came, under the pressure of the moment's anxiety, to urge the Ministry to withdraw it. This was certainly from no half-heartedness in the matter, but simply from a want

the matter of land tenure there is surely nothing to alarm them into defection. This exception may perhaps be called a large one, but the apprehensions of change are as yet most indefinite. That existing restrictions of an irksome kind will be removed can hardly be doubtful, or that such removal will be as much to the advantage of landlord as of tenant. If any restrictions should be imposed on the landlord, there seems as yet at any rate no cause to imagine that the country will see reason for making these more than good landlords are already willing to impose on themselves. Whatever the proposed changes may be, they will at least be discussed in an atmosphere as different as possible from that which enveloped the Irish measure. The abnormal political and social conditions of Ireland are happily not present here to influence the decision of such matters by the deliberate judgment of the people of Great Britain. The bulk of this people are not, like the Irish, tenant-farmers, and, as arbiters in such a question, would desire only that the land should be worked to the best advantage of all concerned in it (that is, ultimately, the whole population) with the least possible interference with the laws of political economy. These can hardly be held to include either the law of primogeniture or the law of distress. The relief of the landlord from the necessity of overburdening his estate to make provision for the otherwise disinherited members of his family, and the increase of security for tenants, have both the same object of facilitating the mutual approach of capital and land. And to such comparatively limited extent as English landlords are absentees or leave improvements to be made by their tenants, this would seem to be generally owing to the restrictions of settlement which prevent the consolidation of their dispersed estates and the free employment of capital now diverted from returning to the soil from which it came.

As to the extension of the county franchise, this has been already accepted by the Whigs, mindful of their mistake in 1866, and recognising the fact that, after all, it is impossible that it should be enough for any class of the people with important class interests merely to be spoken for, itself being denied a voice. Nor have they failed to acknowledge the need of a reorganisation of county government, whenever that pressing question can be attended to; and this is a matter in which their position and experience will give them both peculiar authority in any loyal co-operation with a measure of reform, and peculiar credit for whatever success may be obtained. Their support of the Ground Game Bill was an encouraging sign that Whig country gentlemen are not disposed to deal illiberally with their rural neighbours.

The question of far the greatest moment and urgency at the present hour, the restoration of order in Ireland, ought assuredly, by all the most sacred obligations of patriotism, to be no party or class question. But whatever demand may of stern necessity be made for stronger and more summary expedients for restoring order, there is