30 AUGUST 1902, Page 15

THE VIRTUE OF TOLERATION.

[To THE EDITOR OF TUB "SPECTATOR."]

Srn,—Do you not, by the use of that phrase (Spectator, August 23rd), beg the whole question at issue relative to per- secution P Is toleration a virtue at all,—or is it a euphemism for indifference ? Will any one maintain that we are not entitled, nay, bound, to prevent the foolish from injuring themselves and others by their folly ? Otherwise how are we to justify our late doings in South Africa, how justify our rule in India, in Egypt, nay, in Ireland ? We force our social economics upon three or four hundred millions of men who do not want them, and would not have them if they were able to resist. And we do so rightly, because—and only because —we know what is good for those millions better than they know it themselves. And the result justifies us. And yet a man's inherent right to damn himself (as we believe)- is not to be interfered with on any account, though we wholly disallow his right to have small-pox or to bring up his children in ignorance when he insists upon those luxuries. If we Justify our interference on selfish grounds, so much the worse. For surely it is more intolerable to tyrannise over our neighbour for our own selfish ends than purely for his good. But the common-sense of the matter is that we are Justified in constraining others for their own good (1) when we are reasonably certain that we are right, and (2) when Ise are physically able to do it. The real reason why religious persecution is unpopular to-day is that nobody is strong enough to persecute. No doubt there is a secondary reason why toleration is held to be a virtue; since religion has been based upon human opinion, and not upon divine faith, honest men have had a very reasonable diffidence in imposing on their fellows what they were far from sure about

themselves.—I am, Sir, &c., W. D. GAINSFORD. Skendleby Hall, Spilsby.

[Our Roman Catholic correspondent, Mr. Gainsford, puts very clearly the essential difference between Roman Catholics and English Protestants, or at any rate between us and him, as regards toleration. He regards tolerance as a vice when it is voluntary, and not forced upon men by physical weakness. We regard it as a positive virtue. He, that is, considers non- tolerance to be a religious duty. We consider tolerance to be a religious duty. If we did not feel sure that our correspondent was a great deal better than the ruthless logic of the creed he . expounds, we should be inclined to say : " The teeth and craws have been cut, but the nature of the tiger is the same." Cromwell (witness his Irish campaign) was not always as tolerant as in his best moments be desired to be, but he said one of the best things ever said about toleration. " Liberty of conscience," he said, "is a natural right, and he that would have it ought to give it." As men rise higher in the spiritual scale they will, we believe, come to see that toleration is per is a religious act, and not a mere convention based on weakness or convenience or indolence. They will find that they can yield full liberty of conscience to others without yielding up or weakening their own faith. This may not be logical, but it is something better than that useful but over-honoured little foot-rule. It is the state of mind to which the sanest, noblest, most spiritual, and so most religious men in all the Christian creeds have always, consciously or unconsciously, tended.—En. Spectator.]