[To THE EDITOR OF TEE " SPECTATOR:]
SIE,-I recognise heartily the excellent intention in the latter part of your article headed "The Welcome to Mr. Chamberlain," and I hope you will allow me to help you in your good work of eoftening the bitternesses of the controversy of to-day by pointing out one difficulty (quite apart from political differences) which, I think, hinders Home-rulers from feeling as friendly to the "Liberal Unionists" as many of us would desire. This -difficulty is the desire of many of the champions of the new party continually to pose, or to claim for their friends the right to pose, as suffering martyrs. Allow me to give one or two illustrations of my meaning. A prominent" unionist" only the other day announced that the Liberal Unionists had been " ex- pelled " from the Eighty Club, when every one knew that they had resigned in consequence of having been defeated on a ques- tion of policy.
Again ; a distinguished Q.C. had been one of the Vice. Presidents of the Hampstead Liberal Association. Disapproving of Mr. Gladstone's policy, he had naturally used his position to prevent the Association from furthering that policy. But, equally naturally, the followers of Mr. Gladstone did not like to see him in that position, and, at the next election of officers, voted against his re.election to that office. Thereupon the Echo saw fit to read the Hampstead Liberals a lecture on their extra- ordinary intolerance towards an old and tried champion of the Liberal cam I This sort- of thing is being constantly said, and it is the more irritating because we feel that there never were men who left a party who have suffered less than the "Unionists."
In the first place, the large numbers of the new party, and the important position which they have gained, free them from that position of loneliness which falls on stray deserters from a party.
Secondly, without wishing to approve in the least of the policy of Mr. Gladstone's celebrated manifesto about "classes and masses," it cannot be denied that his statement of fact is in the main correct; and that fact saves the Liberal Unionists from any social discomforts. Why, in this borough, the men who have joined the new party would, I am sure, laugh at the thought of their being " cut " by us who follow Mr. Gladstone. The danger would be quite the other way. I remember, only a week or so ago, hearing of a dinner-party given by a prominent Home-ruler, at which he and his wife were the only (or nearly the only) " Gladstonians " at the table.
Thirdly, I think there has been every disposition among reasonable Home-rulers (and I believe that you, Sir, admit the existence of such people) to recognise the "naturalness" of the conduct of the "Unionists." Strongly as we hold that Liberal principles involve Home-rule for Ireland, we fully admit that the opinions of leading Liberals have, till 1886, been, as a rule, on the other side; and we cannot, therefore, be surprised that a large body of intelligent and honourable men do not recognise suddenly the duty of changing long-cherished opinions, and are perhaps a little disposed to look with suspicion on those who have made that change.
Of course I know that in the confusion of this crisis certain men have drifted to the front rank of the Liberal Party who have no recommendation but their bitter tongues, and who are as savage and unscrupulous on our side as Mr. Chamberlain and Lord R. Churchill on the Conservative side. But I think no reasonable "Unionists" will maintain that they have been deeply wounded by the abuse of Mr. Labouchere or Sir W. Harcourt; while if we have felt disgust at Lord R. Churchill's attacks on the "old man in a hurry," or Mr. Chamberlain's pride in the "society of gentlemen," we do not extend those feelings to those who are accidentally linked with those politicians.
If, then, the " Unionists " will recognise that their position is not really so tragic or uncomfortable as their friends try to persuade them, a great cause of needless irritation will be removed from this controversy.—I am, Sir, &c., South Lodge, Squires Mount, Hampstead. C. E. MMJB,ICE.
[We entirely agree that Liberal Unionists are not martyrs, nor do we see any injustice in removing Lib ral Unionists from positions in which they impede the deliberately adopted policy of the majority of the Liberal Party. But Mr. Maurice hardly appreciates the very great pain with which many of the Liberal Unionists have found themselves compelled to desert their leader and their party, and to incur the charge of disloyalty and the suspicion of crypto-Toryism.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
