LORD DARNLEY AND HIS APOLOGY.
LORD DARNLEY has been true throughout to his proto- type, Mr. Trollope's Marquis of Trowbridge. Like him, he
was capable of imagining insult, of misunderstanding his rights, and of using them in a manner which seemed to every one but himself oppressive. He could not think that a tenant's son had remained in a Yeomanry corps which he himself had quitted except as a slight, he could not see that a tenant had a right to his own opinion, and he strove to punish him by the only legal means in his power. Like the Marquis also, however, the Earl was perfectly sincere in his view of his rights and truthful in the expression of his view, and like him, once convinced of error, he was manly enough to apologise and repair the injury he had striven to inflict. In words which creak a little from a natural stiffness, he regrets his conduct and withdraws his notice, and it took a brave man as well as an honest one to recede in that style before the whole world from a position legally unassail- able. The last letter must therefore be held distinctly credit- able to its writer. Whether, as we suggested last week, Lord Darnley perceived the blunder he had made, according to the traditions of his own caste, by punishing a man for remaining in the Queen's service, or merely recovered his calmness, or, as we would fain hope, was shocked into a review of his con- duct by the abject servility of his tenantry, whose " round- robin " discredited all the manly traditions of Kent, we do not pretend to know ; but he has escaped from an untenable position with no loss of honour, and with a dignift which
would be even noteworthy, were it not for the still more dignified manner, of his tenant, who entirely pardons the injury he had received, heartily acknowledges the "just and generous impulse" of his landlord, but declines to enter again on his old position, now incompatible with his self-respect. Too much consciousness has been introduced into the relation. Lord Darnley must find a new tenant, but the task will be all 'the .lighter, because Mr. Lake's successor will not be required to pay two rents,—one in money, and one in unreasonable and, as -lawyers allege, unconstitutional deferences.
The dispute itself being over, we have a word more to say about the share the public has taken in it. Landlords of Lord Darnley's opinions, including a great many who have neither the courage to act on nor to retract them as he has done, always resent the intrusion of public opinion into a dispute about holdings. An ejectment is a private affair, they say and think, and the public interest in it is only provoked by Radicals who want to "subvert society," or at any rate, to break up a power—that of the great landlords—which is usually hostile to their views. Both these impressions, which are nearly uni- versal, and have often produced political results, are, as we believe, erroneous, and it is well worth while to state the reason why. The public is not so fond of interfering as land- lords think. Nobody ever interferes with the purchase or sale of land, because that is known to be a mercantile transaction, regulated by mercantile principles, like a sale of sugar. Every- body knows that whatever a man's opinions, or prejudices, or habits, he sells his land, if he sells it at all, to the best ad- vantage, giving no preference in price to any party or any views. Be the baron never so Tory, or the brewer never so Radical, the baron sells to the brewer, if he sells at all, as readily as to the duke. People, on the other hand, do interfere in ejeetments, because they are very often poli- tical acts, intended either to repress certain opinions, or punish certain opponents, or, as in the Cobham Hall case, to maintain a certain order of society. It is the lessor, not the journalist, who, when he evicts a tenant for a vote, or for a speech, or for any social cause, makes the ejectment a matter of public importance or concern. If a man buys a vote with sovereigns, that is not a private affair, nor is the purchase of a vote by the menace of a fine involved in a threat of ejectment. In giving Mr. Lake notice because he had not paid his rent, Lord Darnley would have been doing an act public only because land, like water or gas, is a statutory monopoly of an essential article ; but in giving him notice because he has broken a" feudal tie" he is doing a political act, striving, to the best of his power, to keep up what remains of the feudal organisation. If he sold or refused sugar on the same grounds, and still more, if he cancelled, a contract to supply sugar, journalists would be "down on him" just as hard. They are " down " on workmen, who do that very thing, much more hardly.
The other opinion, that Radicals are always hostile to arbi- trary ejectment because they are always hostile to social eminences, is just as unfounded as the former. English Radi- cals do not object qua' Radicals to a great landlord getting the leadership of his district, if he will only get it by fair means. They may deny the claim of birth, but as nobody need follow Howard who prefers to follow Smith, they meet the claim with no weapon except satire. They may dislike the pretensions of wealth, but as wealth is open to everybody, they make wealth itself no argument for ostracism. They may despise rank as a basis of ascendancy, but as nobody need be governed by a Duke qua Duke unless he chooses, they are not heartily -hostile to any but the legal privileges which, in this country, some dignities confer on those who hold them. What they object to is the use by men who possess rank and wealth and birth of material force in addition. They think it im- proper for Smith, who has eloquence and brains and experi- ence, to buy support in the country or the State by gifts, and do not think Howard excused for the same conduct be- cause he has, in addition to all Smith's advantages, rank and birth besides. What the defenders of modern feudalism will not see is the abject baseness of the system they love. Just think of the advantages a wealthy English aristocrat has in this country in a county fight or a Parliamentary struggle. He is the most conspicuous person in his neighbourhood, the one who can confer most obligations, the one who ought to be best educated, the one who has most leisure to cultivate influence, the one who is most exempt from the retarding effect of petty social rivalries. If his intellect, morals, or manners are not altogether below par, he has a "pull" over any possible rival of at least twenty years. And this man, thus situated, is to use none of these. advantages, but rely on the coercion through poverty of the consciences of his tenants and dependents. He is to menace ejectments unless he receives homage and support. He is to demand cheers under pain of fine applause under fear of disgrace, votes under risk of "banishment," as Carlyle calla it, from a home, or it may be of starvation. That is what " influence " on tenants amounts to, and that is what good men and kindly men, men who can hold their own in political strife, or like Lord Darnley, acknowledge a wrong when they have strong motives to persist in it, will defend as a fair system, -4" \ one far nobler than the equality of rights for which Radicals contend. They buy a show of simulated belief in their probity, capacity, or characters, and think, and strangest truth of all, think sincerely, how very noble that practice is Their fight is a "cross," in which victory was certain beforehand, and they defend that as a manly struggle. "What a warrior am I," thinks the Chinese General who has just paid his oppo- nent to run away. That scores of them owe nothing -in the fight of life to their power of ejeelment, and would win if they owned no farms, is beside the question, which is not the capacity of aristocrats or rich men, but the nobleness or baseness of a system under which, if it were but logically complete, capacity would be needless. We say nothing of the intellectual absurdity of a theory under which, if a man hires two farms of two hostile landlords, he is morally bound to support both, and bang his right cheek with his left-hand whenever the right-hand waves a cap for either landlord, and adhere simply to our point,—that the English rural theory of the right relation between landlord and tenant is utterly base, so base that if the Marquesses of Trowbridge could only see it, they would scorn it as a dishonour. "Influence" is not dishonourable even when due to accident, but it is dishonourable when due to petty corruption, and to let a tenant know that he must go your way in politics or social life instead of his own way under penalties, is petty corruption of the basest because the most creel kind ; and the greater your birth, or rank, or capacity, the baser the act. It is bad to throw red pepper in a row, but to throw it when you are the stronger ?- Very Utopian, all that Nonsense, we are asking nothing except that a man who chooses to play chess should play fair, and not because he is a big man not only castle his king across check, but declare that unless he has that privilege chess- playing cannot be nobly carried on. Sensible Radicals do not ask that great proprietors, even though they are in one way trusteee, should accept enemies as tenants, or surround themselves with people whom they heartily disapprove. They know perfectly well that this is a mere counsel of perfection, and that no one can be compelled, if he holds his tongue, to let a farm to a tenant he dislikes. If he will refuse red-haired men, he must. The right of choice on admission ought to be exercised, like every other right, reasonably and conscientiously, but still it is one of the rights which can in practice be limited by the conscience alone. But they can call on a landlord, when he has chosen, not to oppress the man of his choice, not to demand of him rent in forms which, in nine cases out of ten, it is immoral or cowardly for him to pay. The man who, because he has the power, buys the truthfulness of a witness, or the chastity of a woman, or the honour of a soldier is thought a dog, by the very men who the next minute, with- out an idea of what they are doing, will buy the independence, very often the moral independence, of the men by whose help their own lives are made serene. If men say that is only human nature, we acknowledge it, as wehave acknowledgedfrorn the first that in most cases the purchase is made in total unconsciousness of evil; but to defend such a scheme of life as the typically noble organisation of society is too aggravating. It is a base organisation, and the sooner that is seen, the better for the greatness of those who now think that in their power of buying and compelling "friendly support" is the best founda- tion of social grandeur. A cesspool is a poor,foundetion for a column, and an estate where the tenants dare not keep opinions is a moral cesspool, whether its owner think its scent a perfume or a stench.
Previous page
