and ability is inadequate. It had best be left alone by the Tory. Is the Tory and Radical view left identical by this abnegation? Is the utilitarian test to pass unchallenged? I have tried to suggest in the essay on Burke a third alternative. I have discussed a right which it is suggested must form the basis of all sound legislation constructive or destructivethe right, that is, to the safeguarding of legitimate expectations. This is but one example of the lesson which past Tory thinkers have to teach us, if their doctrine be but modernised. There is little original in my treatment of the biographical side of these essays. The extent of my obligation to others is apparent. Four specific obligations it gives me special pleasure to acknowledge. Without a certain suggestion of Mr. John Murray the essays could never have taken form. An anonymous writer in the Quarterly Review supplied me with my conception of Lord Salisbury's foreign policy, though I will do myself the credit to acknowledge that I did not accept his views without verification. My uncle, the Master of Trinity, gave me permission to ransack his notes upon Burke. I cannot express to him sufficient gratitude for that permission. Finally, to my friend and colleague, Mr. Will Spens, I make a very full acknowledgment of an immense debt. If there is in this book a happy phrase, or a train of argument that commends itself to the reader, it is bound to be the outcome of one of those talks in Combination Room or on country walks, in which he knows how to inspire those that are his friends. For the imperfections in this book I myself take full responsibility. Mr. Ralph Butler, Mr. Charles Benham, and Mr. K. W. M. Pickthorn have had the kindness to help me read the proofs. CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, G. G. B. |