The state of mind of the Tory Members in relation
to the Agricultural Labour question is a very curious study. Take, for instance, that of Major Arbuthnot, M.P. for Hereford, at Eghain last week, or of Sir M. Hicks-Beach, M.P. for East Gloucestershire, at Highnam, near Gloucester, this week. Major Arbuthnot deplored the fact that this un- fortunate question "had found its way into the hitherto peace- ful relations of agricultural life,"—Major Arbuthnot has not evidently the least notion that the evil out of which " this unfortunate question" springs existed in full strength when "the question" as yet was not ; he deplores the question, not the evil,—but whatever might be the means of getting the un- fortunate question back again into its primeval silence, of one thing Major Arbuthnot was clear, that the labourers must not listen to "those pestilent professional agitators who cared for the working- man only so long as they could make a living out of him." Yet the Major's caution told him that this was not very wise language, and he added, in a lower moral key, that he did not deny the men's right to join together in self-defence. So, too, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said, that the objects of the Union were "tending to a state of Socialism,"—rather grim humour that, when said of a Union which is trying to get agricultural labourers' wages up to 15s. a week,—but still his hearers must be very careful, he said, not to use rash or forcible means to put down this dangerous Socialism. Clearly the Tory landlords are a little beside themselves on the matter. They have been "educated "- by Mr. Disraeli till they really wish to hedge against their own- intemperance of feeling, but the intemperance of feeling comes out all the same, nevertheless.
Previous page
