Mr B. to have railway stock, house or funded property, of the same value?
Moreover, if this State purchase and distribution of land is to begin, what particular portion of the working classes is to have the first claim to receive a portion of the prize? Plausible as the theory may be made to appear in the mouth of the mob-orator and communistic Minister, its practical working would be found to be surrounded with difficulties. If proof of this were desired, it is to be found in the condition of many landed proprietors at the present moment. Their owners would be only too glad to let large portions of them to small holders, or even to sell to small owners. But the class is not to be found. Let any man look around his own dwelling and ask himself, in the first place, where he could obtain men able and willing to become the owners at a fair price of small lots of land; and in the second place, what hope such men could have of supporting themselves and their families upon the produce of such land? If the land is to be purchased for the new class by the State, the question of the terms upon which it is to be held would give rise to a fresh crop of difficulties: and if we could create a large class of small freeholders to-morrow, within a week the operation of natural laws would have begun to create inequalities; ere long the property of one man would have increased, that of others would have dwindled away and disappeared, and the demon of private ownership would again appear in this visionary paradise.
We are well aware that to well-informed and thinking men, the appeal which Mr Chamberlain makes to "natural rights" will be well known to be (in the language of the 'Times,' in its comments upon his Ipswich speech) "the most completely exploded of political quackeries" Under ordinary circumstances we should have no fear that such foolish and mischievous doctrines would have produced the smallest effect upon the public mind. But we must recollect the position of the speaker, and the circumstances under which the speeches have been delivered. The latter have been avowedly addressed to the body of newly enfranchised electors, with a view to guide them in the first exercise of their electoral power. The former is a man whom the present Prime Minister has elevated to a platform from whence his words are widely heard, and must have considerable weight. For they are the words of one of those whom Mr Gladstone has placed among the counsellors of his Sovereign, and whose sentiments, if not wholly in accordance with those of the rest of the Cabinet, must, so long as his colleagues remain mute after his repeated declarations, be held to approximate to their views sufficiently to allow them to conduct with joint responsibility the affairs of the nation. Does Mr Gladstone hold these sentiments; and if so, does he still plume himself upon being a follower of the late Sir Robert Peel? Hear the words of that great statesman upon the second reading of his Corn Law Bill in 1846: "I am not one of those who wish to see the constitution of this country more democratic than it is. I cannot think that the public mind wishes it to be more democratic than it is. I have no faith in Governments guided by uncontrolled popular passions. I have no wish to see the aristocratic element weakened in our constitution." Then turn to the speeches of Mr Gladstone's col-
