LTO THZ EDITOR OF RITE "SPECTATOR?']
SIR,—As a friend of the late Sir Clinton Dawkins, I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that, no doubt quite un- intentionally, the article of last week headed "The Spectator and the Baghdad Railway" may create a misleading impression both of his character and of his patriotism.
It so happens that I have some slight personal knowledge of the Baghdad Railway, and at the period referred to I remember that he frequently endeavoured to convince me of the unsound- ness of the views which I held upon this question, and as frequently deplored the opinions expressed by the Spectator and the National Review. But I am absolutely positive that he never made any sort of suggestion that either of these organs was ." got at" in any sense whatsoever, and the absurdity of such an idea must be apparent to any one who Las been in the habit of reading them.
Personally, I consider that Sir Clinton Dawkins was mistaken in his views with respect to the Baghdad Railway, but perhaps it was a greater mistake to write a private letter to a German gentleman, who has apparently published it with the object of creating dissensions amongst English public men. The phrase "instigated from Russian sources " is not happily chosen, and is certainly ambiguous. A foreigner might •easily interpret it in an unfavourable sense, as it is exceedingly difficult to convey exactly what is intended to those who use another language ; but no intelligent educated Englishman would ever imagine that it was intended to reflect upon the independence of the Spectator and the National Review. That independence is far too well known to be affected by a chance expression in what was probably a hurried private communication, and I am convinced that the many friends of the late Sir Clinton Dawkins will agree in the view that, although he may have been mistaken in this particular instance, there was no one who bad more deeply at heart the interests of his country.—I am, Sir, &c., ' NEWTON.
Previous page
