TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD HARTINGTON'S WARNING.
LORD HARTINGTON'S speech at the Cutlers' Feast at Sheffield was not, we suppose, meant exactly to rally
together the proprietary interests of the present House of Commons against all other interests for the consideration of the Irish land question. But it was not a very wisely-toned speech, and reads uncommonly like a note of warning from one of the greatest proprietors in the Cabinet that all sorts of dangerous proposals are on the cards, which it will require resolute combination amongst men of all political opinions who are attached to the rights of property to resist. Lord Harlington says expressly that the Irish land question should not be con- sidered as a party question,—should not, as he rather mysteri- ously puts it. be made "the battle-horse of party" (does he mean the battle-ground? the battle-horse of party would usually be what parties fight with, and not what they fight about), but should be considered without relation to party rivalries. He then hints, with an emphasis and significance that will convey to many people his wish for external aid against members of his own party, that "it is not only the property of Irish landlords, it is not only the property of English landlords, it is property of all kinds which will be at stake. For do not suppose for a moment that any discussion will arise next year, or that any measure can be passed without principles and doctrines being enunciated equally hostile, not only to the interests of landlords, but of capitalists of evezw description." As Lord Hartington probably knows that nothing has the slightest chance of being passed which is not supported by the Government with all its weight, the legitimate inference would be,—we do not say it is the intended one, for Lord Hartington is sometimes a clumsy speaker, who need not necessarily be credited with having put into his words what other people take out of them,—that the speaker fears the tendency of some members of the Cabinet to which he belongs, and is anxious thus early to alarm the proprietary fears of the country into making a stand against these tendencies. If that was his meaning, his speech would bode very ill for the unity of the Government. It can scarcely be supposed that what Mr. Gladstone's Govern- ment just now needs to help it on with the Irish land question, is a popular demonstration against any change which might be regarded as a deviation from the old pro- prietary traditions. Yet that is practically what Lord Hartington is already trying to get up. He calls upon all landowners and capitalists, whether English or Irish, whether Whig, or Tory, or Radical, to unite against notions "hostile not only to the interests of landlords, but of capitalists of every description." We should have thought, absolutely unde- fined as Mr. Gladstone's programme on this subject as yet is, that if he wants the help of a junior member of his Cabinet in raising a cry of distress, and signalling to the foe for help, at all, it would be in the direction rather of a little boldness, a little independence, a little enlargement of the stock proprietary ideas, than in the opposite direction. The Cabinet of Lord Russell was certainly defeated in 1866 on an Irish land measure of the most moderate and inoffensive description, and was defeated by the excessive caution and timidity of the pro- prietary interests in the House. Are things so greatly altered now that Lord Hartington really looks for wildly com- munistic proposals from Mr. Disraeli, supported by all his own party and a large Liberal Cave ? It would seem so, if his cry of distress at Sheffield, his passionate entreaty for help of any sort, Tory or Liberal, against "principles and doctrines hostile not only to the interests of landowners, but of capitalists of every description," were really made on behalf of the Goverment to which he belongs, and made in serious earnest. Is it not rather more likely that Mr. Disraeli, counting on the proprietary fears of Liberals like Lord Hartington, "men acred up to their eyes, consolled up to their chins," will discover the gravest assaults upon the rights of property in any attempt, however modest and how- ever conservative of vested interests, to adapt the land laws of Ireland to the rules and customs already more or less uni- formly observed amongst the Irish farmers,—and where not actually observed, still more vehemently demanded and desired as having the sanction of an ancient tradition. That certainly is our impression of the line which Mr. Disraeli is likely to take. He would hardly have been so eager to get the Irish Church question fairly settled, if he had not hoped to fight a
better battle on the Land question,—a question never submitted' to the constituencies, and tolerably likely to divide the Liberals amongst themselves, as well as Liberals from Tories. Already, doubtless he is assuring his despondent friends in the very- words of the Marquis of Hartington, that "principles and doctrines hostile not only to the interests of landlords, but of capitalists of every description," must be broached by- the Government if they are to make any show at all of con- tenting Ireland ; and that if such principles and doctrines are broached by the Government, the time for the disheartened Tories to give up the cultivation of that great modern quali- fication for Parliament of which Mr. Henley tells us, the power of "sleeping without snoring," and to betake them- selves again to active warfare, will have come. If these be- Mr. Disraeli's ideas—as every one who judges simply by the light of nature conjectures—Lord Hartington's exhortation to' men of all parties will chime in admirably with the leader of Opposition's views,—and even encourage the latter to hope against hope that the noble Marquis may assume a place int some future Liberal Cave as conspicuous as that taken by Earl Grosvenor in the celebrated Cave of 1866.
And Lord Hartington, though we will venture to hope that he will disappoint such evil expectations, will have himself, and only himself, to thank for them. It was not a wise and hardly a very patriotic part, to seize the moment when it is quite cer- tain that nothing whatever can be done to quiet and satisfy Ireland which will not be open to petty objections from the' alarmed proprietary interest—not even if it be no more audacious a scheme than Mr. Chichester Fortescue's
Land Bill of 1866—to call up the alarmists, and so reduce the chance of any healing measures which can admit of being branded as embodying any innovating and dangerous principle. Lord Harlington is not so simple as to be ignorant that, what- ever the present Cabinet decides upon, it will need some courage and enlargement of view to defend and pass, and that the- bulk of the Opposition is quite sure to consist of the very self-interested Timidities whom he has just been endeavouring to rouse into precautionary activity.
It is remarkable that while Lord Hartington exhorts men of all parties to merge their political differences for the sake of resistance to every principle and doctrine that they may consider- hostile to the interests of the landowner and the capitalist,. Sir John Gray, the Catholic Member for Kilkenny, is making approaches to Mr. Johnston, the Orange Member for Belfast, to effect a combination in favour of the Ulster principle of fixity of tenure known as tenant-right, and exhorting men of all parties to merge their religious differences in support of those principles and doctrines which will be held by hosts of men to. be hostile to the interests of both landowners and capitalists. Thus, in point of fact, what we seem likely to have pressed, upon us, is an oblivion both of political symiiathies on the one hand, and religious sympathies on the other, in order to recombine forces the more efficiently for a battle of mere naked self-interests,—the interests of capitalist and land- owner versus the interests of farmer and (probably> agricultural labourer, who may always hope to rise one- day into a tenant-farmer. With all deference to Lord. Hartington, we do not think that to make the land question
what he calls "the battle-horse" of money interests, instead of the " battle-horse " of political or even religious sym- pathies, is at all likely to improve the character of the war- fare. The new antagonisms will be sharper than the old, and' much vulgarer as well. Political principles are usually inter- ests and something more,—interests raised out of pure selfishness into a higher region,—interests transformed by disinterested sympathies. While Liberals feel that they are fighting for their old cause, the government of Ireland on principles as near as may be to those on which Ireland, if out of the Union, would wish to govern herself, —while Tories feel that they are fighting for the integrity of the Empire, and resisting a process which they conceive to threaten the vitality and unity of their country, there will at least be dignity and nobility about the strife. But if the advice of the alarmist junior in the Cabinet is to be followed, and men,, forgetting their higher political differences, are to range them- selves instead according to the instincts of their pocket and the tiraidities of their purse, we may no doubt have the Irish land question taken out of the category of party questions, but only that it may become the rallying-point of a far- more ignoble struggle,—one in which companions in arms will desert each other under pretext of fidelity to the higher promptings of menaced rent-rolls and endangered investments.
Previous page
