Mont Blanc would never do. If it is said that this, then, is his amusement, and let him be content with this, the answer is, that no man can judge for another on points of this kind, and that, practically, men do not find that relaxation in London ball-rooms which they do find in hunting and shooting. For these sports the only substitute is travelling. And by the terms of our argument, even gentlemen who are not members of Parliament, cannot have both a season abroad, and a season in London as well. We leave the reader to judge for himself now, how much of that kind of amusement, which combines relaxation and excitement, would be left to a resident proprietary, if field sports were abolished. That the owner of an estate should find his principal amusements at home; that these should be of a manly and invigorating character, and such as to bring him into contact as much as possible with all classes of society; are propositions which nobody will dispute except the Radical zealot who wishes to destroy the whole system, or the effeminate philosopher who is afraid of wetting his feet, and looks down with literary contempt on all physical exertion and feats of hardihood as worthy only of savages, or soldiers. This may seem a small matter. But it is evidently the desire, the scarcely veiled desire, of a certain class of reformers in this country to effect a complete dissolution of the structure of rural society, and to banish at the same time all those ideas, traditions, and associations, which still haunt the village and the manor house, and constitute one of the chief strongholds of Conservatism. To this end misrepresentation, exaggeration, calumny, and even gross unadulterated falsehood, are set actively in motion far and wide, high and low, by the agents of the Radical confederacy, in order to kindle the torch of discord, and inflame against each other the various classes of the rural community, who have so long presented an unbroken front to the progress of revolution. Nothing is of small account on which the promoters of this great change rely for the success of their attempt. We are far from underrating the conservatism of the large towns, the conservatism of reflection and conviction, which is still destined to play so important a part in moulding the history of this Empire. But there is also a conservatism of the heart and the affections, the conservatism of Wordsworth and George Eliot, which we cannot afford to lose in the great struggle that is at hand; and this is born of the woods, and the hills, and the streams, and the eloquent immutability of nature. To destroy this will be impossible till England becomes one huge city; but it may be so divided and distracted distracted as to be reduced to impotence; and this is the object with which ninety-nine persons out of every hundred approach the subject who complain of the injustice of the Game Laws. If the commercial aristocracy choose to challenge the territorial; if the mill-owners choose to say to the landowners,' You are a selfish,, luxurious, and tyrannical class, living on the sweat of the poor, between whom and yourselves all the sweet sympathies and charities of life have long since disappeared; who, by buying out smaller proprietors, have created a gigantic monopoly, and now dictate terms to your miserable serfs to whose very faces you are strangers: for this grinding despotism we wish to substitute the milder and more benignant system of the commercial aristocracy, who never do anything of the kind, whose leading members are self-denying philanthropists, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and tending the sick, as often as they hear of their necessities, whose power, all who come within its range, love, venerate, and bless and for whom all their dependants, should a civil war break out to-morrow, would fight knee-deep in blood;'-if our manufacturing millionaires appeal to the British public to act as umpire between themselves and the county families in a struggle based on this contrast, who should say them nay? Let the battle be fought, and let the truth win: and as in war all stratagems are fair, we cannot find fault with them for any disguise which they may think proper to assume in order to gain the day. But we may claim the right of plucking it off; and we have therefore thought it our duty to expose the hypocrisy which cloaks the outcry against the Game Laws. All honest attempts to ease them where they still pinch, and to prevent injustice from being done to either proprietor, farmer, or labourer, command our heartiest approval. But we would set the agricultural classes on their guard against those pseudo-benefactors who, under cover of promoting their welfare, are only pushing forward their own jealous and malicious projects; and, while apparently intent on assisting the tenant or the labourer, are only waiting their opportunity to stab the landlord in the back. ART. ART. X.-1. Proceedings in the House of Commons, June 8th, 1885. 2. Mr. Gladstone's Letter to the Midlothian Electors, June 27th, 1885. 3. Manifesto of the National Liberal Federation. 4. Speeches of Sir W. Harcourt, Sir C. Dilke, and Mr. Chamberlain, June, 1885. In the early part of hot mountry, with the possible exception N the early part of last month, an event occurred which took of three or four members of the Ministry, who appear to have been in the secret. It is a most important part of our business to place upon record in these pages materials for future history, and consequently it now becomes our duty to describe the facts in connection with a series of incidents which will long be memorable in our political annals. · It happened, then, on the 8th of June, that Sir Michael HicksBeach brought forward a motion condemning the new duties on beer and spirits, which were embodied in Mr. Childers's Budget. It was further proposed to postpone 'fresh legislation on real property,' until effect had been given to the resolutions of the House of Commons passed on the 17th of April, 1883, and the 28th of March, 1884. It is quite evident that, in framing this resolution, Sir M. Hicks-Beach had not the least suspicion, that he was loading a piece which was destined to deal out destruc tion to the renowned Gladstone Administration. He assured the House, that he had no wish to express any censure on the Government, or to move a vote of want of confidence.' His object was merely to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remodel his Budget.' It is obvious, indeed, that he could not have meant to do much more than this, for the Government still had a nominal majority over all opponents of 120, and although the new taxes were exceedingly unpopular, no great pressure from outside had been brought to bear upon the Ministry. It could not be pretended, that it was unusual or improper to require a Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his proposals. Mr. Gladstone himself has been obliged to modify his Budgets; Mr. Lowe, when serving under him, was forced to abandon his match-tax, and in the same Budget an increase of the legacy and succession duties was thrown overboard by Mr. Gladstone, who dreaded the result of a motion of which Mr. Disraeli had given notice. No one seems to have thought the worse of Mr. Lowe for his failures-quite the contrary. He secured a peerage, and one of the last acts of Mr. Gladstone Mr. Gladstone in quitting office recently was to decorate the author of the match tax with the Grand Cross of the Bath. There was, therefore, nothing unreasonable or especially alarming in the position taken up by Sir M. Hicks-Beach. Under a régime of economy, the great apostles of the 'retrenchment' doctrine had brought the national expenditure up to the almost unprecedented amount of 100,000,000l. During the last year of Lord Beaconsfield's Administration it had been little more than 84,000,000l. Mr. Gladstone's Government increased this to the extent of between four and five millions a-year. Liberals and Conservatives alike might well stand aghast at this result of all the great promises and professions of 1880. A remonstrance was inevitable, and there was nothing in its nature or terms to render Mr. Gladstone's resignation imperative. But the plain truth of the matter was, that the Ministry had come to its last ditch.' There was not another move left for it in any direction. In Egypt, in Ireland, in India-at home or abroad, far or near-there was absolutely nothing to be done which was not almost certain to bring new perils and disasters upon the country. The public received with impatience a scheme for increased taxation from a Ministry which had staggered blindly and helplessly from one quagmire to another. The storms which continually went on inside the Cabinet became at last so loud and so frequent, that it was impossible to keep them secret from the nation. They were a public scandal. One of Mr. Gladstone's loquacious colleagues has since come forward to reveal the secrets of this wonderful Cabinet. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre tells us* that on one occasion when the Government escaped defeat by a majority of 14 only, Ministers were very anxious to resign. Here is his account, given with a freeness and a circumstantiality of detail, which we have not been accustomed to expect from a Cabinet Minister : : 'The occasion will ever be impressed on my mind, for I had very recently been favoured by admission to that interior body of members known as the Cabinet, who alone are responsible for the general policy of the Government, and the Cabinet which met immediately after this division was the first important one that I attended. It was decided, not without considerable hesitation, that to give up the Government at that moment would be running away from our difficulties. We decided then to hold on.' *Speech in Chatham Hall, Battersea Park Road, June 25, 1885. On June 26, the following notice appeared in the Daily News': A political pension of the second class has been conferred upon the Right Hon. George Shaw-Lefevre. The value of the pension is 1200l. per annum.' Mr. Shaw-Lefevre had only been in the Cabinet a few months. Some Some day, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre will probably tell us more of what he saw and heard as a Cabinet Minister; the first instalment of his reminiscences is decidedly amusing. It not only proves how great an acquisition he must be to any government, but also that Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues had some thoughts of a 'bolt' months before they felt able to carry out their wishes. By the time June had come, their troubles had increased, and their desire to run away from them had increased in proportion. Everything was unsettled in Egypt, the Russian difficulty was by no means removed, and another Coercion Bill for Ireland was impending. The whole world could see that the Gladstone craft was waterlogged; scarcely could it have kept afloat under any circumstances twenty-four hours longer. It fell to the lot of Sir M. Hicks-Beach to give the Government a decent pretext for cutting loose from the wreck. His resolutions against the Budget were carried by a majority of 12. It is unnecessary to go minutely into the controversy which followed. Whether the Liberal Whip misled his usual supporters, as some of them contend, or whether the chief of the Caucus passed round secretly the word of command for retreat and flight, may never be known; but the majority which had stuck by the Ministry in its ruinous blunders in Ireland, in its desertion of Gordon and of the Egyptian garrisons, and had encouraged it in all its purposeless, costly, and cruel wars-this servile majority suddenly melted away. I can no more forget,' writes Mr. Gladstone in his Letter to the Midlothian electors, 'than I can repay its confidence and kindness.' Undoubtedly he owes it a large debt of gratitude, especially if the convenient defeat of the 8th of June was privately planned-not, of course, by Mr. Gladstone-without the consent of the rank and file. In any case, the Liberals were at first greatly elated over their discomfiture. The feeling is abroad,' remarked one of their organs, that the leaders, released from office, will be able to "fire the prairie," and sweep the constituencies with overwhelming force.' 'The resignation of Ministers,' said another, 'has cut some knots hard to untie, and it will set Ministers at large, and "unmuzzled."'† 'If the Tories come in,' said Mr. Chamberlain's local newspaper, they will expect to be compelled to explain and justify every step they take.' Mr. Chamberlain himself rushed forth in hot haste, proclaiming that his hands were free,' and that his voice might now be lifted up in the cause of freedom and justice.' The voice of a Spectator,' June 13th, 1885. 'Birmingham Post,' June 11th. + The Nonconformist.' man |