hundred acres, so is the latter if compared with the owner of a single acre. It is impossible to draw the line; and therefore, if a crusade is to be commenced against the "monopoly of private owners," it must be one of a far-reaching and general character. The word "monopoly " would appear to be only introduced ad invidiam; for the owner of land has of course no more monopoly than the owner of bank shares, railway stock, or any other property, and it would be just as wise and sensible to place a restriction upon the ownership of these as upon landed property. The word "monopoly " only means that the property which belongs to A does not also belong to B, but is A's own. In the case of land, it is rather essential that this should be the state of things, as no one would expend money upon land if somebody else had a concurrent claim upon the results of that expenditure; and if money be not expended upon land, all improvement comes to an end, and deterioration soon ensues. The attempt in Ireland to constitute A and B, i.e., landlord and tenant, joint owners of the land, has, so far, been a wretched failure, and can only result in the gradual absorption of the interest of the one in that of the other. New Lib eralism, if it desires to obtain a more equal redistribution of land throughout the country, and to destroy this supposed monopoly, must not stop at the men of "vast resources," but is logically bound to make an assault upon the general body of landowners. It must, however, be borne in mind, that to seize the property of private owners, in the attempt to arrive at a general equality of possession, would be an act of confiscation against which not only official Liberalism but all honest men

would rebel; and even those who have approached such a process in their method of dealing with Irish landlords, would think twice before they proposed to adopt it in Great Britain.

But if confiscation is to be avoided, fair compensation must be given. Fair compensation could only be given from the general taxation of the country, and new Liberalism would thus begin its reforms in this direction by an enormous addition to the taxation of the people, without any corresponding advantage, or, at least, none which could possibly possess the principle of permanence. For when the " monopoly of private owners" had been swept away, it could only be followed by the same kind of monopoly in a different form. Every owner of a plot of land is, in this point of view, a monopolist, and whether a man is the monopolist of one acre or ten thousand acres, the principle is the same. If you change your one monopolist into ten thousand monopolists, there will be still many thousands of persons outside this charmed circle of land-possessors who will have just as much right to claim a further division of the one acre as the first claimants had to demand the first division. Great Britain remains of the same size and extent, whilst her popu lation rapidly increases, and any attempt at the compulsory division of land could by no possibility result in more than a very temporary success. Against the probability of such success must be set the difficulty which would be experienced by a very large portion of the new monopolists in turning their land to good account. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that, if the land of Great Britain were divided into allot

ments to-morrow, a greater amount of comfort would be felt by the masses, whose interests the new Liberalism affects to promote in a special manner, as against the rest of the community. Many of them are not tillers of the soil at all. A still greater number would 'not be able to receive allotments of land sufficiently near to their dwellings to admit of their cultivation to advantage; and as transactions in the nature of sale and barter would immediately begin, "equality would soon disappear, and the thrifty man would prosper, whilst his careless neighbour starved, just as is now the case in every country and under every system. The subdivision of land by legislative action is surrounded with difficulties; and those who write glibly about the "monopoly of private owners" would do well if, before exciting discontent with our present system by vague and idle language of condemnation, they would endeavour to put before the public some definite scheme by which these difficulties could be surmounted. Until they do so, the thinking portion of the British public will rate at their proper value these claptrap allusions to "monopoly" and "di erted resources," expressions which may serve the political purpose of the moment, but which, when analysed and investigated, will be found to have no substantial foundation in the facts upon which practical legislation must be based. It should, moreover, be noted, that this new Liberalism, into which the Liberalism of former times is invited to merge, is a Liberalism which at every turn belies its own name by imposing restrictions upon everybody, and restraining freedom of action in the most ordinary transactions of life. To restrict the quantity of land which an

individual may possess, is, in other words, to restrict his means of investment-which is unjust to the individual; and to prevent the extended application of capital to the land-which is injurious to the nation. The balance of argument is in favour of the contention that a greater amount of produce is obtained from farms of considerable size than from a multitude of small holdings; and whether this be so or not, those who are acquainted with rural life know perfectly well that, as a rule, the labourer upon a large farm, in receipt of good wages, is better off than the small occupier of ten or twenty acres, who, at present prices, finds the "problem how to live" uncommonly hard of solution, and who contributes a quota of taxation at the present moment, in the shape of rates and taxes, which would have to be supplied from other sources, when the land had been subdivided so as to make it impossible to be paid by its possessors.

So far, then, as we can judge from a partial investigation of the doctrines of the new Liberalism, it seems very probable that old and genuine Liberalism, party and principles together, will presently be doomed by this product of democracy, which, in usurping the name, has abandoned the princi ples of the real Liberal party. To emancipate trade; to make commerce free; to war against the abuse of privilege; to unfetter the press; to promote religious equality and uphold the principles of liberty in every department of the State, these were the objects which the Liberal party formerly advanced as those which constituted its programme, and on behalf of which it fought and won its battles in the days which we have left behind us. But those who aspire to lead our new democracy

have an altogether different creed. Liberty to them is no reality, but only a political catchword with which to delude the masses into the support of projects which are opposed to its true spirit. It is not liberty but licence which they really desire,-licence for the many to plunder the few; licence for the idle, the thriftless, and the unsuccessful of mankind to prey upon the property of the industrious, the thrifty, and the prosperous. The Liberal party, under the guidance of Mr Gladstone, has already drifted far enough from its old principles to have forfeited all claim to its distinctive nomenclature. The arbitrary interference between landlord and tenant in Ireland; the imposition of judicial rents upon the owner, whilst allow ing to the tenant the sale of his goodwill by unrestricted competition; the legislative restriction upon the relations between employer and employed in Great Britain,—all these are things which, whether good or bad in themselves, are directly contrary to those principles of the Liberal party which were based upon the encouragement of free thought and free action among all classes of the community. Further restrictions may yet be deemed necessary-restrictions upon drinking, restriçtions upon the hours of labour, restrictions upon other of the transactions of ordinary life; but if such are to be demanded and enforced, let us not be so absurd as to allow the party of restriction to claim any longer the title of the Liberal party. That party formerly inscribed upon its banners the captivating watchwords of 'Peace, Retrenchment, Reform." The so-called Liberals of. the present day would apparently seek "peace" by reducing England to the position of a second-rate

an

Power, unable to maintain either offensive or defensive war; "retrenchment," by starving the services and falling back upon a cheese-paring and fallacious economy; "reform," by assenting to all the revolutionary projects of our Radical crotchet - mongers. This is not the policy of the genuine Liberal party, which the present Government really represent in a far greater measure than their opponents. Peace is at this moment rendered more secure than ever; on the one hand, by the care which has been given to the defences of the country-and on the other, by the confidence reposed, both at home and abroad, in the firmness and discretion of Lord Salisbury in his conduct of our relations with foreign Powers. The financial measures of Mr Goschen, and the reductions which have been made in the Estimates wherever reductions could be legitimately effected, prove the sincerity and goodwill of the Government in the matter of retrenchment; whilst as to reform, their efforts have certainly surpassed those of their predecessors, whilst their success will appear the more remarkable when contrasted with the failares of recent Liberal administrations. No one who studies the legislative history of the last three years will accuse Lord Salisbury's Government of want of courage in entering upon the path of reform. They have stepped forward boldly but wisely, and in carrying comprehensive measures through Parliament, have at once evinced their own ability to read the signs of the times, and have shown to the world that a Tory Government is by no means what its enemies would declare and desire it-a Government of reaction. Lord Salisbury's Government, in common with all men who take a large

and sound view of the position, fully understand and recognise the fact that, in a country such as our own, there can be no legislative stagnation, but that questions must and will continually arise which require to be dealt with by Parliament in a free and liberal spirit. They also recognise, however, that reform and revolution are things essentially different; that a system or institution which stands in need of the one does not of necessity require to be destroyed by the other; and that proposed changes and amendments should be carefully weighed and scrutinised before their adoption.

It was never more necessary than at this particular period of our history, that the reins of government should be held by men possessed of the courage to move boldly forward upon the path of reform, and of wisdom enough to do so in a spirit of Conservatism in the best sense of the word. Political power has lately been placed in the hands of the masses, and a deliberate attempt has already unhappily been made to persuade them that those whom Providence has placed above them in the social scale have objects and interests divergent from and opposed to their own. To counteract a lesson so evil and so mischievous as well as untrue, political wisdom of no ordinary kind is required by our rulers. The bulk of the population of this country is neither destructive nor revolutionary; but they may easily become both one and the other if they are induced to believe that they are wronged, oppressed, and debarred from prosperity by privileged classes or a faulty system of government. It is therefore essential that they should be taught the truth on these matters, and should learn that there is no legislative panacea for the ordinary ills of ex

istence, and no system of government which can secure universal and continuous prosperity to the people. But this lesson can only be taught by teachers who are themselves in sympathy with those they desire to teach, and who combine with the instruction a readiness to grapple with the social questions which affect the people, and to legislate where legislation is necessary in a large and generous spirit. For the fact that legislation cannot effect everything is no reason why nothing should be attempted; and it is above all things desirable so to deal with actual grievances as to prevent their being employed by political agitators as levers for the furtherance of their own revolutionary schemes. Mischievous crotchets are often presented to the masses in an attractive form; but the common-sense of the people, and the progress of education, will prevent their acceptance so long as sensible and substantial reforms are submitted to them by responsible statesmen. Of course, the question as to what are "sensible and substantial" reforms, as distinguished from visionary projects and unworkable theories, is one which will at all times be open to discus sion and argument. But it is no true Conservatism, nor is it in accordance with the dictates of common-sense, to shut our eyes either. to the existence of grievances or the necessity of reforms. Nor can a greater mistake be committed than that of mistrusting the men to whom the Unionist party has confided the conduct of public affairs-as if there was any reasonable suspicion that they had erred from the paths of constitutional progress, and had adopted principles other than those which they have undertaken to uphold. This remark seems to be called for both by murmurs last year against the

Radicalism of the Local Government Bill, and the revolt of the Tory peers against the Land Transfer Bill in this present year. Both these measures were de manded by the public opinion of the country, and both afforded an opportunity to the Tory Government to show that Toryism was in sympathy with that opinion, and was capable of dealing with such questions in a bold, liberal, and comprehensive spirit. The Unionist and Tory party have full confidence in Lord Salisbury, and it is to be supposed that he has summoned to his Cabinet the men whom he thinks best qualified to advise him upon the great questions of the day. If the measures of such a Cabinet sometimes appear to their party to be of too Radical a nature, it may be safely prophesied that it is because there are good and substantial reasons for the same, and that in the new order of things under which we live, such measures have become necessary in order to meet the public demand.

If we exclude the regrettable fiasco of the Tithe Bill, the most damaging thing that has occurred to the Unionist party during the present year has undoubtedly been the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Land Transfer Bill of the Government. It was not that the Bill was perfect, and as a matter of fact it was improbable that it would have passed the House of Commons during the year, but its rejection was a practical rebuke to Lord Salisbury's Government for having dealt with too bold & hand with the Land Laws. Considering the position occupied by the House of Lords before the public, and the constant allegation (untrue though it be) that it is specially a "House of Landlords,"

nothing could have been more illadvised as regarded themselves, or more unjust towards the Government, than the action of the majority upon this occasion. This dread of reform, and suspicion of the Government which undertakes it, must give place to wiser and more generous feelings. If the Unionist party is to hold its own, it should encourage and not thwart its leaders when they propose legislation which is of a progressive and reforming character. It is not only the Cabinet which may fairly complain of the want of confidence displayed upon the Land Transfer Bill debate, and the fear of progressive views still entertained by certain timorous politicians. The speeches delivered by Lord Ran dolph Churchill during his visit to Walsall and Birmingham at the end of July have called down upon him the wrath of the dreaders of reform, and have been so severely criticised in some Conservative quarters as to give occasion to the enemy to rejoice over a supposed "split in the camp," from which they might take confort to thera selves under their suffering from a real infliction of the same kind Although no such misfortune really exists in the ranks of the Unionists, public opinion is undoubtedly right in attributing importance to the speeches in question, and it is well to draw attention to the matter. Lord Randolph is too influential a man to be treated with disregard or indifference, and his services to the constitutional cause are too valuable and too recent to be forgotten. Like every. body else, Lord Randolph doubtless has his faults, but these are far more than balanced by the courage, cloquence, and ability of which he is the undoubted possessor. All these qualities, for instance, were conspicuous in his