ance.

in the light of which much of modern legislation takes on a rather new appearI mean the moral obligation on all individuals, and on any society, not to falsify expectations which it has made legitimate by express permission or by tacit consent.

"When men are encouraged to go into a certain mode of life by the existing laws," writes Burke,1 in giving a particular instance of this general principle, "and are protected in that mode as in a lawful occupation I am sure it is unjust in legislature, by an arbitrary act, to offer a sudden violence to their minds and feelings." Now this view of legitimate expectation is a principle of fundamental honesty, and it is in real danger to-day. It is not infrequently ignored when the administration interferes to condone breach of contract because of a supposed unfairness, which admittedly does not approximate to such gross inequity as to lead to a possible voidance at Common Law. Of course, it should be added, if such gross inequity did arise, the voidance of the 1 Burke, Works, vol. iv. p. 279.

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

57

contract would itself be brought within the field of legitimate expectation; but too often Governments are found interfering with no trace of such excuse.

It is also in this neglect to safeguard lawful expectation, which the modern State has sanctioned and fostered, that there lies the real injustice and iniquity of many current attacks on property. If I am right in saying this, then on the one hand it does not preclude, and it is necessary to remember that it does not preclude, the State from nationalising property; on the other hand, it does require that this shall be done after such warning, or with such compensation, as not to falsify the legitimate expectations of all those individuals in possession when the change occurs.

I doubt if any moral basis can be advanced for property which carries one further than that; but I believe that it is morally wrong to concede one tittle less. I venture to think that the concession of so much would remove any real sense of injustice as well as any real injustice itself.

Let me put shortly one final point, because it illustrates another ancient

L.

difference between the Radical and Tory point of view. If what I have said is true, it is no reply to say that the continuance of private property, if only for an extra week, does harm and causes injustice; and that this reflection must outweigh any safeguarding of expectation. It may be true that every hour of private property's existence is a crucifixion hour for mankind. Even that does not justify precipitancy. It is not lawful to do evil that good may come from it.

As a matter of fact, to the Tory precipitate action would not only be wrong but inexpedient. He insists on what the Liberals, without denying, always tend in practice to ignore-that it is essential to preserve for individuals the right to abuse what is their own, in order that they should have the opportunity to desist from doing so. A Society based on a different principle has neglected in the eyes of the Tory an important instrument for training character. All down the ages there have been those whose primary concern in making laws is to prevent the existence of a wrong state of things. To others, the ideal has been not to prevent a

RESTATEMENT NECESSARY

59

wrong state of things, but to make natural a right. The Radical lays greater stress upon right action; the Tory values more the formation of right character.

In some such terms as these I dare to interpret the message of Burke for this age. If the proud and ancient Tory party is once more to fill in the councils of the nation the place which is its due; if the national life and the national activities are to enjoy the richness of diverse composition once again, then there is great work to be done. The Tory must draw upon the wisdom of our Fathers, he must select and he must reinterpret their sacred principles in a language understanded of the people. There must be a Renaissance, a Reformation, a Reception of unexampled brilliance and of unparalleled effect. Away with the glosses of the Radical commentators, away with the books about books. "Man kann nichts anders," "Back to Burke,' "An open Burke." He must be the Bible of the pure and reformed Conservatism, which alone can oust the misguided if generous proposals of the modern Radicals, and meet and solve the problems which have given those proposals motive force.

III

DISRAELI

XI WISH to-day to invite your attention to perhaps the greatest of all Tories, Benjamin Disraeli. It is a far cry from Bolingbroke and Burke to Disraeli; from England in the age of Anne and the Georges to the England which has scarcely passed away. Yet it needs no daring effort of imagination to see more than one point of resemblance between these men. They passed their lives for the most part. in opposition; they are numbered, consequently, among those statesmen who are crowned not for a nobly productive period of office, but rather in that they have inspired men with a creed. Other examples spring quickly to the mind-Cobden, to catalogue no other.

Again it is possible to consider alike Bolingbroke, Burke, and Disraeli as literary men. Of Burke there is no need