THE LIBERALS AND THE FARMERS.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—As pointed out by you in a recent Spectator, farmers haves received from Liberal newspapers treatment not calculated to impress them with feelings favourable to Liberalism. If your words should have the effect of modifying the tone of news-
papers, one important step will have been taken towards con- vincing farmers that they have nothing to expect from the. Tories beyond smiles, friendly greetings, and those courtesies in the hunting-field and elsewhere which have been made to serve instead of leases, covenants, compensation, and freedom from ground-game. The farmer is certainly not the fool he is often represented to be, and knows well enough what he wants, but does not know how or where to get it. Those who pro- fess to speak in his name and on his behalf too frequently ignore the difficulties that arise out of the very nature of his occupation, and the conditions under which it is pursued. He-
is hemmed in on every side by agents, landlords, and others, who are not slow to use his words against him, if he speaks too, much or too loudly against the difficulties of his lot. It is all very well to say that farmers should speak out, and should. boldly throw in their lot with the reformers of land and game laws ; but speaking out means almost certain ruin, and may,. after all, do no good. The farmer must be liberated before he- can be expected to speak out. Yearly tenure is the strong chain that binds him, the gag that keeps him silent, the force that makes him obedient. Noisy, discontented farmers can be- punished in many ways short of eviction, and they know it. Formerly, the farmer could not vote without his landlord and his landlord's agents knowing how he had voted. The ballot has altered that state of things, and the farmer now keeps his own counsel, and is learning to vote as he pleases. When he sees a Liberal programme advocated by a united party, and is no longer bullied by Liberal newspapers, he will vote for Liberal candidates in England, as freely as he does now in Scotland.
The recent Tory development of affection for the "Conserva- tive working-man" is not the result of a transfer, but of an extension of smiles and hand-shakings from the halls and mansions of the country to the workshops and factories of towns. Farmers will not be less liberally dealt with as regards smiles and greetings, because working-men in future are to be- more highly favoured in this respect. Old-fashioned Tories can smile right and left, and give two fingers of the left hand, with a familiar "Do, do !" on this side, and that without any fear of the- friendliness friendliness being presumed upon. Liberals, on the other hand,. seem to be afraid that condescension of this kind might be construed into an admission of equality. The deep-rooted belief amongst farmers that the Tories are their political friends is the best proof that could possibly be adduced of the success that has attended this policy of smiles and greetings. It speaks volumes in favour of Tory tactics under Lord Beaconsfield, that he and his one- minded followers are able to pose successfully, in and out of Parliament, as the protectors and defenders of farmers. Liberal Members of both Houses of Parliament, and Liberal land- owners, neglect the cultivation of that esprit de corps amongst the rank and file which the Tories have so well learnt how to cultivate and maintain.
The difference between the Tory and Liberal method of treat- ing farmers, and indeed voters generally, is that Tories are friendly and fraternal, except just at election-times, when every man is expected to requite his landlord's uniform kindness by giving him a vote. The Liberal is surly, ungracious, and in- different, except at election-times, when smiles and greetings do not look well, and, naturally enough, are resented.—I am, Sir, J. G.
Previous page
