Of these proposals as a whole we have spoken elsewhere,
but we cannot omit to notice here that Lord Randolph entirely ignores the Settled Land Act when he describes the insolvent tenant for life growing on the land like a fungus. Except Lord Randolph's own brother and the Duke of Wellington, whose estates were purchased by moneys voted by
Parliament, there is not a landlord who cannot sell whenever he likes. We believe with Lord Randolph that it would be wise to restrict the power of settlement in order to secure simplicity of title, but the reason he gives for his proposal is not now valid. As to the rehousing of the working classes, Lord Randolph would like the Municipal Councils to become owners of the soil of our cities, and to replace the slums by model dwellings where there would be proper attention paid to sanitary laws, and no rack-renting. Of course, it would be a weight off the mind of every decent man in the land to abolish the rookeries, and no sacrifice would be grudged that would really bring this about. What, however, the country wants to learn is, how the.thing can be done without running the risk of gigantic swindling, and of rates that would crush the very life out of the poor and their employers. As the Salford scandals showed, we can hardly trust the local bodies to supply gas, so blind are they in cases of peculation. What, then, would not be the risk of jobbery if the Councils had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on bricks and mortar. On the licensing question, Lord Randolph's attitude was that of the moderate temperance party. He would put the granting of licences into the hands of the Town and County Councils, and would give no compensation to the wholesale producer, though he thinks the retail seller should get something if his busi- ness is closed. As for the eight hours of labour, Lord Randolph was all for le*ssening the labourer's day, though by what means he did not specify.
Previous page
