14 AUGUST 1886, Page 15

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

UNIONISM v. GLADSTONIANISM.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " EPECTATOR."J

SIR,—Having sat at the feet of the Spectator for twenty years, and having learnt from you to look on Mr. Gladstone, if not as a political idol, at least as a political ideal, may I be allowed to state why the faith of some of us, even of the Liberal clergy, in the moral dignity of our former great leader has been more than rudely shaken? The standpoint of the Spectator, that though mistaken in policy, Mr. Gladstone still has acquitted himself nobly (for such I gather is your faith), is one that every generous instinct, every prepossession would gladly incline us to hold, if only we could. But is the standpoint true ? I know nothing of the newspaper slanders against Mr. Gladstone's fair fame you have referred to, for the only dailies I have regularly read during the past six months have been on his side, and the only weekly food I have digested has been supplied by yourself; yet it has hardly seemed to me in keeping with the lofty character of him who for years back has won our allegiance by applying the principles of Christianity to politics, to claim for himself "not to have been an opponent of Home-rule for fifteen years back," a claim the worthlessness of which you have ably shown, The sudden discovery of the praiseworthiness of men who are wading through bloodshed and anarchy to the dismemberment of the Empire, has been rather too rapid for the statesman who locked up the same men in prison. It hardly seemed to lie with a politician of fifty years' standing illogically to denounce the Union because of the way in which it was cemented. Worse still, the attacks on the leading Unionists, notably on Mr. Goschen, men who had fought with him through evil and good repute, through fire and storm, seem to us to have been as ungenerous as the denunciations of " Peter " and the volumes of post-cards and telegrams appear vulgar and offensive. More so, the turning-out the Conservative Government (a consum- mation in which at any other time I should have most heartily rejoiced) on a side issue, and then turning round with bitter sneers on the very man whose motion he merely used in order to bring in himself a completely different kind of policy, seemed a trick only worthy of an "old political hand." If "Dizzy " had done it, what would not you have said of trickery and legerde- main ? Of course, we do not believe that the whole calibre of his being is changed; but what does appear to be the case, is that a rapid but thoroughly sincere conversion has made him blind to the force of arguments which once had overpowering weight with him. He has followed the proverbial course of all converts, especially of those who always are in a white-heat, and who ever hold with the deepest intensity a present faith, and who see equally with the righteousness of their cause the moral blackness of all opposed to it. It is Mr. Gladstone's fervour, enthusiasm, and reality of faith in whatever he advocates, which give him such a hold on millions of his countrymen; and it is because all these powers are now enlisted on what you with us

believe to be an utterly vicious cause, that we believe a preven- tion of his return to power on any terms to be as necessary as a lasting defeat of the Home•rnle policy. No other leader has his gifts, and our energies must unfortunately be directed against him as well as his policy. We do not doubt his sincerity, but we do strongly deprecate both his policy and (alas ! that I should pen the words) the way in which he has advocated it.— [Mr. Gladstone has never spoken of the Parnellites as "praise- worthy." The most he has ever said is that they are not now conspiring, as they did in 1881. His contention is that his Bill would hand over Ireland, not to the Parnellites, but to the Irish people. We do not in the least agree with him, but it is equally impossible to agree with the unworthy invectives directed against him. Many of our correspondent's criticisms seem to us just, but to involve much less censure than be seems to award. No one who does not know what it is to conduct a great struggle can fairly mete out praise and blame to those who do. We have said just the same thing in Mr. Chamberlain's case, though we think that much more of heated party spirit may be discovered in his speeches against Mr. Gladstone, than in Mr. Gladstone's speeches against him.—En. Spectator.]