THE OXFORD ELECTION
To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Sir Arthur Salter must not let his modesty mislead him into thinking that the significance of his victory " is obviously political and not personal." So far as one zealous Conservative is concerned, who abandoned his life-long practice in voting for Sir Arthur, the exact contrary is the truth. I voted for him solely on the ground of his outstanding personality. Sir Farquhar Bu77ard is, no doubt, extremely distinguished in the medical field, but he has expressly disclaimed any special ability to : " cast The water of this land, find her disease, And purge it to a pure and pristine health."
Professor Lindemann might or might not prove to be more than an additional unit in an already safely crowded Govern- ment lobby. But Sir Arthur is known to be a man whose individual contribution to political discussion will clearly be entitled to the respectful attention of all parties.
Nevertheless, in an ordinary constituency, he would not have had my vote. But I hold—to modify Sir Arthur's words—the " definite opinion that University representation should be used not to increase the number of party members but to afford " (not " an expression for the kind of policy which," but " a seat for the kind of man who ") " is denied representation in ordinary constituencies." Lord Hugh Cecil, when first elected, was, if I remember rightly, of the same type—a distinguished political figure who, as a Unionist Free-Trader, was unacceptable at the time to the party organisation of either side.
My vote did not in the least imply a transference of my confidence from the present Government, nor, I suspect, did those of the numerous other Conservatives who made the same choice. And we may not vote the same way again in a General Election, when the return of one Conservative more or less may be a matter of real consequence.—Yours faithfully, G. M. GATHORNE-HARDY. Donnington Priory, Newbury.
Previous page
