THE REASON WHY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—While I am not prepared to estimate how far the Liberal victory has been due to the earnestness of the Nonconformists, I may venture, I think, to question your justice to them, when you say, as you did last week, that " they came to the front again" in the recent Election, " partly because they were stung by the avowed belief of Lord Beaconsfield that by his House- hold Suffrage Bill he had annihilated their political import- ance." As a Nonconformist myself, and one not unacquainted
with Nonconformist feeling in various parts of the country, and moreover, as chairman of an Election Committee containing its fair share of Nonconformist representatives, I can bear my testimony that the zeal and persistency of the Non- -conformist community in working for the overthrow of Lord Beaconsfield drew no stimulus from any such nettled sense of personal slight. For myself, I can truly say that, till I read your note, I had utterly forgotten the belief of Lord Beaconsfield to which you refer, and I am greatly mis- taken if my obliviousness is more complete than that of the -vast majority of Nonconformists. But if ever the smart did really make itself felt in any of the more susceptible, it was long ago far overborne by the acute and engrossing pain inwrought by a policy repugnant to "true religion and godliness," a pain which, and which alone, was sufficient to transform the Nonconformist insurrection against the Tory maladministration into a fervid and uncompromising crusade.—I am, Sir, dr,c.,
CANTAB.
We were quite with our correspondent as to the main cause. If the other told in some degree also, it was quite right it should tell. If it did not, it was solely because it was merged in the stronger and higher motive.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
