that the supply of land in the market fully equals the present demand, and that the popular theory, that it is so locked up that nobody can buy, rests on no solid foundation.' (P. 49.)

Lord Derby's remarks on the Game Laws are perhaps of equal value. The subject to some minds is a trivial one; by others it can scarcely be spoken of in an unprejudiced manner. Lord Derby did not look at it as a sportsman; his tastes lay in quite opposite directions; and he spoke from an absolutely impartial position. Then,' he said, addressing a farming audience—

6

'there is that ticklish question of game-a word I am almost afraid of uttering on such an occasion, though I do not think I shall have anything to say upon it that can provoke controversy. I have always thought it a question which, with moderation and good sense on both sides, ought not to give trouble. Nobody can doubt that there is a great deal of over-preserving in England, and that in some places it has been carried so far as to amount to a public nuisance, and when that is the case, I hold that what is in fault is not the love of sport, but a love of ostentation and display, and it can hardly assume a more objectionable shape. We are told that there is to be some legislation on the subject. Now, personally, I am not a very keen sportsman, and I shall acquiesce heartily in whatever Parliament may decide; but I would just point out that it is possible for you to go so far as to defeat your own object. The absolute sweeping away of the power of keeping game on farms, however brought about, would, of course, imply, under their changed conditions, a general revaluation for rents, and by that operation the tenant would certainly not be a gainer; while in other cases it might probably lead to this-the rich men, fond of their sport, and willing to make sacrifices in order to keep it, would take more and more of their estates into their own hands in order to enjoy their amusement undisturbed. That would not be an arrangement, I think, for the benefit of any party. One thing, I think, the tenant really has, in many cases, to complain of, and that is the difficulty of making a fair bargain with his landlord where game is concerned; because, not knowing what the quantity of it will be, he cannot form an estimate beforehand as to the probability of loss. If that can be remedied-and I do not see why it should not be—I cannot see that there is any injustice or grievance remaining so far as that is concerned.' (P. 48.)

A love of ostentation and display,' rather than a love of sport, is in truth at the bottom of much of the ill feeling which is set down to the game laws. And it is not likely that this feature will disappear, since-as the place of the old territorial aristocracy and squirearchy is taken by those who, having made large fortunes in cities, turn to the country for their pleasures-the tendency to over-preservation of game, largely from a love of display, is rather likely

VOL. CLXXIX. NO. CCCLXVII.

Р

-- increase than to diminish. Even in such cases, however, moderation and good sense on the part of landlord and enant were always present, the game question would not, it continually does, cause so much ill feeling. But it is that people should clearly understand, as Lord Derby and out, not only in this passage but in others, that the ration of game is a matter for defined and reasonable nes arrangements between the occupier of the land and andlord or game tenant. In another place he mentions, continually forgotten, that without the Game Laws ought to be a severer law of trespass; but the public either consent to its being passed, nor allow it to be od if it were passed.' He also points out that in a large the prevention by law of persons from wandering and in pursuit of game is a constant protection to the ce of the land whose crops and fences would otherwise I damage At the present time a deal of nonsense ed about the condition of the rural districts by persons ee dar ill informed, and therefore the views of Lord on this subject are of especial weight, because he together removed in sentiment and ideas from the squire or the territorial aristocrat. And whilst on question of the land, we must mention that the very ...ge of this book is filled with a letter written by Lord so recently as February 1892, in which he deals with holdings and the migration of the rural population to It is obvious from it that, though willing ... dea ring to see the experiment tried of increasing ...ot of suiall occupiers of land, he was not sanguine It is still more clear that he believed that of the rural migration are too strong to be * opinion with which any candid man who ...ed to arrive at a just conclusion by a constats will certainly agree:

པ ས སྙན སྙན ོ་

་་་་

wwwwwls, it will both tend to satisfy the requireand add to the value of land, which at to be. There is no question of hardship cat need of compulsion, for estates can easy terms. It remains to be seen ...can hold their own. They certainly many people hold that, being a more es, they will work harder and to wions differ, and nothing will settle ter to a practical test. I do not holdings or that of District ishing the attraction which the

life of great towns seems to hold out to the agricultural labourer. The same tendency is shown and the same complaint made in countries which differ widely in their social constitution. Higher wages, more varied amusements, easier access to shops, and the pleasure which many people feel in the mere presence of a crowd, are quite adequate explanations of the townward movement. The man on whom these attractions operate most strongly is not likely to be kept back by the prospect of comparative solitude and hard work on a farm of five acres.' (P. 513.)

The last epigrammatic words of the letter describe the permanent condition not only of every peasant proprietor but of every successful farmer on a large scale and of most agricultural labourers. The creation of Parish Councils, the establishing of village reading rooms, the care of domestic sanitation, while they may add somewhat to the interest and the comfort of rural life and make the lot of the English labourer (favourable though it already is in comparison with that of land workers in most parts of the globe) more tolerable, cannot stop the townward movement. The country cannot be turned into the town, and every increase in the convenience and the attractions of rural life is met by an equal, if not greater and similar, increase of comfort and prosperity among the urban populations. But in a speech delivered twenty years ago Lord Derby, in discussing the question of agricultural wages, points out a defect in rural economy the remedying of which would help to keep the best labourers on the land.

'While on this question I would recommend it to your consideration whether it is not both just and politic to distinguish, more than is usually done, between individual labourers, as regards the rate at which they are paid. One man's work is worth half as much again as that of another; it is a discouragement to the really good worker not to have that difference recognized; and, looking at it in another point of view, by valuing each man's labour separately you encourage the spirit of individual energy and ambition, rather than of combination and collective action. The strong and the energetic will not feel, under such a system, that, in order to rise themselves, they must drag after them the dead weight of those who have neither strength nor energy. And as they lead the rest, when you satisfy them you go a long way towards satisfying all.' (P. 91.)

It is largely the hope of bettering his condition which draws the more intelligent and energetic labourer to the town. He perceives the dead level of work and pay which characterises agricultural labour, and he believes that there are beyond his village, in commercial communities, greater openings for industry and application. Undoubtedly

he is often deceived; but, speaking broadly, the individual is, outside agriculture, able more easily to obtain adequate remuneration for personal capacity. On this point Lord Derby, with the knowledge and insight which distinguished him, hits a blot, the removal of which would do more to add interest to the labour of the agricultural workman than most of the well-intentioned but unpractical schemes which are constantly being formulated for his benefit. The speeches on the subject of land and on those questions which are closely connected with it show how strongly Lord Derby entered into all the phases of his subject: how he mastered details before he attempted to state generalities to his audience. Generalities, no doubt, are singularly attractive both to the speaker and to his hearers, but they are too often as misleading as they are interesting, and so they find small space in Lord Derby's speeches; for his great object in addressing an audience was to clear away all ambiguities and to show things in their actuality.

The subject of Education afforded ample opportunities for plain speaking on Lord Derby's part. His interest in it, whether in its more elementary or its higher forms, was great, and his position in Lancashire and as Chancellor of the University of London necessarily brought him into connexion with many educational movements. Being a man of wide and varied reading, though no one was ever less prone to make a show of knowledge, he was in complete sympathy with those who were desirous of improving national education. But he was under no illusion in regard to the practical results which would arise from it. Education might make a man happier but not richer, and he was anxious that, whilst its importance should be perceived, its results should not be misunderstood. It would not be easy to find the several sides of the question put more plainly than in a speech which Lord Derby made at the opening of the new building of the Manchester Grammar School in 1871, which is equally an encouragement and a warning. As a whole, it is too long to be quoted, and it must suffice to give some of the most noticeable parts:

'It is not at all unreasonable to expect that, in a few years, we may have a system of teaching so far extended over the whole face of the country that no boy of real talent need be kept back by mere poverty from whatever chances of distinction may otherwise be open to him; and those chances will, undoubtedly, not be few. With free admission, as you have it now, to the Civil Service of the State (not that that Service is quite so well paid as a great many people who are anxious

to get into it are apt to imagine); with military colleges open also to competition; and with an increased proportion of educational appointments of one kind or another (and I suppose I ought to reckon among those educational appointments situations on the press, which is the educator of us all); with all these things, I suppose that there will be a demand for a very fair proportion, though probably not for all, of the talent and of the industry which it is the business of these schools to foster. That is in various ways a satisfactory condition of things. It gives fair play to rich and poor alike. It gives the State as good a chance as it is likely to have of obtaining the services of the most competent men; though, of course, it cannot prevent the State from being outbid, as in this country it is very likely to be, by private employers. And, what is more important, it tends to raise the general intellectual condition of the community. It is, in one word, the realisation of what the educational reformers of the last half-century have wanted and have worked for. But we must not suppose, when we have got that state of things established, that it is one altogether free from inconveniences of its own. You are going, if you succeed in what you intend to do, to make the educated man a very cheap article in the market and, of course the difficulty will be to prevent the supply from overrunning the demand. You must prepare to face that difficulty. If intellectual ability is to be more generally developed, and if that developement is to proceed on a great scale, it follows that intellectual labour (except labour of the highest class, which, of course, is exceptional) will command a lower rate of pay. That is a social condition which exists in many countries, and which has its very obvious drawbacks. . . . Of course you may ask why, if you are to talk at all about educational matters, you should mention instances of that sort, because they can only serve to discourage young men from minding their work, and lead them to believe that there is nothing in the world except luck. I do not take that view of it at all. I believe that, as a rule, other things being equal, the qualities which enable a young man to succeed in a school or college competition are those qualities which will enable him to succeed in after life. They are industry, perseverance, and a steady attention to details. All I say is, Don't let a young man imagine, because he has received a superior education, that therefore he is to be above the ordinary work that comes to him to do; and above all, don't let him suppose that, because the public, by means of endowments and cheap schools and otherwise, has helped him to develop his faculties, that therefore the public is under some kind of moral obligation to find him congenial employment for the rest of his days. That may sound to some people a very needless caution, but it is one which, if I had anything to do with teaching, I should never lose an opportunity of enforcing. The great bulk of the work that has to be done in the world is work of a rather homely and rough character; and a feeling of contempt for any kind of labour which is not distinctly and exclusively intellectual is one of the most unfortunate and dangerous fancies with which a young man can start in life.' (P. 63.)