Itittro In Of ihitur.
ME. GLADSTONE'S ELECTION. . .
19 Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Pdrk, 19th July 1852. Sin—For many years past I, have been a constant reader of the Spectator; and as I look at the array of your annual tomes (noW before me) which I have read over number, bynumber, I feel that I am indebted to you for no small part of the assistance I have received in forming an opinion upon con- temporary events. I must say, however, that, taking Mr. Gladstone's election as the one with which I am best acquainted, and as the type of several others which you have made the subject of special comment, .I am wholly unable to justify, if I rightly understand, the doctrine which you lay down. In your number of the 19th ultimo you thus advise the electors—" What principle, then, should guide us ? A very simple one ; choose always the best man. Not always perhaps the man you most agree with. That would do if you had any prospect of carrying out your own objects ; but you have not. The most you can do is to contribute what help you may towards giving the best turn practicable to the next chapter of accidents ; and the best means to that end is to make as strong a House of Commons as possible. The larger the number of keen, sturdy, positive men,. with some public spirit, the better, whatever their theoretical party view. . . . . To cite a few only as specimens of the choice we would advise,—and it will be seen that we have no respect for party,—at Manchester, Bright is a better man than Denman, because he is more positive, more absolutely represents a real opinion and class, would more resolutely, put his shoulder to the wheel, with heart in the push ; at Oxford University, Gladstone is a better man than Marshain' in every way, as the man to advise, guide, and sustain a national effort." And so you cite various ether instances, concluding thas : "For ourselves, we do not agree with all the men we have named as preferable— in some instances far from it ; but the larger proportion of strength, whether of mind, will, or public spirit in the new House of Commons, the better for the prospects of the country." Having thus, a month ago, laid down your principle, you proceed, in your number of the 17th instant, to apply it to such members of Convocation as may not have been induced to vote for Mr. Gladstone, in terms which appear to me to be less measured than accords either with the na- ture of your axioms or with your usual courtesy towards opponents. "‘ Mr. Gladstone's victory at Oxford" (you write) "over a powerful and unscrupulous combination—organized at leisure, strong at head-quarters, and ramifying into all parts of the country—indefatigable in its malignant
activity, and shrinking from no measure of mendacity—is the most gratify- ing event in the present elections. It is a victory over a conspiracy of the most discordant elements to gratify vindictive spleen."
Unscrupulous' malignant, mendacious, vindictive, spiteful conspirators— these are very hard words, and most entirely inapplicable, I know from my own personal knowledge, to many who voted for Mr. Round in 1847 and for Dr. Marsham in 1852, not to mention those who (like myself) felt linable, then as now, to vote at all. I admit that Parliament is best composed of such men as you describe.. We obtain fire from flint against flint, not from flint against clay, nor from clay against clay. But I deny that such a consideration justifies the votes of electors against their own political convictions in individual constituencies. I do not advocate the doctrine of pledges any more than you do. I am as strongly in favour as you can be of representatives in cottradistinction to delegates. But I maintain that, when the Queen calls on her subjects to complete Parliament by electing a House of Commons, she does not (in the spint of the oonstitution) expect them to ignore the specific questions that are to occupy the attention of Parliament. If you think that she does, I don't know what becomes of your speculations about the representation of minorities, (which in the presence of able candidates must always annihilate themselves) nor of your attacks upon Lord Derby for going to the country upon a question of 'general confidence in his Ministry.- - If however, the view, thus nakedly stated be not your opinion, but what you mean to assort is, that, when it comes to choosing a representative, minor differences should be sunk in broader considerations of policy, then, I am quite ready to maintain that—considering the peculiarities of an Oxford election—there are such salient points in Mr. Gladstone's public principles, (mind, I do not say, private opinions,) as ought to forbid those who do not hold them from voting for him there, whether or not on other questions - they may be followers of the late Sir Robert Peel, of Lord John Russell, or of Lord Derby. I will-not venture to say you have overlooked, but you certainly have not, at least to my apprehension, reconciled the apparent inconsistency of re- quiring the election of "keen, sturdy, and positive Members, to represent real opinions and classes," while, in the same breath, yin call upon whole classes of electors to act as if they had no opinions at all, except upon the compara- tive'inoral and intellectual qualifications of certain individuals. An elector expresses two facts by his vote—his own political opinions, and, his approval of a candidate to represent them. He is untrue to the can- stitution if he deliberately ignores either of these two obligations. As re- gards the latter of the two, " mallem cum Platone errare qualm cam sills recta sentire," appears to me to be a maxim even less defensible in polities than in speculative philosophy, because the canon whereby to judge in poli- tics is confessedly experience and common sense, such as every man may acquire by attention, and such, therefore, as every man is morally bound, in his degree, to exercise for himself.
tThere is some incoherence in the structure of this letter, and we do not quite make out the writer's object : so far as we understand our correspond- ent,We see little to need any ex/Agitation, and less to warrant kreopening of the bygone discussions.
The " hard words " quoted from our number of the 17th, were not ap- plied, nor meant to apply, indiscriminately "to such members of Convoca- tion as may not have been induced to vote for Mr. Gladstone," but to the managers and agents of the "combination," in Oxford and London. We judged them by their own publications : we have no 'personal or private knowledge of the proceedings, or of the motives of parties, on either side of the contest.
Certainly, no consideration could justify " the votes of electors against their own political convictions'!—or any other real conviction. • We have not attacked Lord Derby "for going to the country upon a quesi Lion of general confidence in his' Ministry," but for evading the public judgment by withholding those explicit statements of policy which have been usual on the like occasions, for directing or permitting contradictory utterances by the different mouths of his Ministry, and for encouraging the revival of sectarian animosities on the eve of the general election.—En.]
Previous page
