We do not wish to weary our readers with any
lengthy comments in regard to the reception of the Rhodes-Schnad- horst correspondence, but there are two points upon which we desire to comment. The first is that the Opposition newspapers, as a rule, drew attention to the danger of allowing men of wealth to bargain as Mr. Rhodes bargained with Mr. Schnadhorst in regard to matters of policy. Even those papers which were most furious with the Spectator for having Tbrougbt the matter to light a,greed to our prin- ciple. Their vituperative epithets do not, we need hardly say, trouble us, but the acceptance of the true standpoint as regards the party funds is most satisfactory. Unless we are greatly mistaken, Mr. Rhodes and millionaires of his kind will in future find it extremely difficult to get their condi- tional cheques accepted by either party organisation. The comments of the chief Unionist papers were for the most part in favour of our main contention. The Times, in dealing with the subject in an admirable article, which was thoroughly worthy of the position of the leading daily, observed :—`• Mr. Rhodes has twice flung his gold crudely into the scales. He had a 210,000 transaction with Mr. Parnell and he had another of 25,000 with Mr. Schnadhorst. He meant well on both occasions, from an Imperial point of view, and in both cases the final result is that he can scarcely count a single friend in the party he subsidised. We trust he will accept the lesson, and be content in future to pursue Imperial ends by methods less redolent of the mining camp."
Previous page
