[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR,-In the Spectator . of
March 26th there appeared a paragraph referring to certain" senseless and vulgar attacks" on the Rev. R. J. Campbell on the ground of his presentation to Court by the Bishop of London. It is suggested that some one sought to dissociate Nonconformity from loyalty, and the culprit is indicated in the closing sentence, whicb calls upon the Daily. News to apologise to Mr. Campbell. It is, I imagine, the desire of the Spectator to be exact even when it cannot be friendly ; but it is difficult to believe that this gross misrepresentation is the result of mere negligence. I enclose extracts from the Daily News covering everything which it said on the subject of Mr. Campbell. They show that our criticism had nothing whatever to do with the presentation at Court. It was concerned solely with 'Mr. Campbell's statement that he had " little confidence in the Liberal party," coupled with the fact of his interview with Mr., Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour. Only once was the presentation at Court referred to, and then in the following terms :-" Finally we may perhaps suggest to Mr. Campbell that his consciousness of Anglican tyranny is a little difficult to reconcile with his introduction at the Court of Edward under the wing of the Bishop of London, one of the prime authors of the Acts under which Nonconformists are to-day being sent to prison." It will be seen, therefore, that the Spectator first ignores the entire ground of criticism, and then distorts a single sentence on a mere point of prOpriety into an expression of disloyalty. I leave your readers 'to decide who has been guilty of " senseless and vulgar attacks," and from whom apologies are due.-I am, Sir, &c.,.
A. G. GARDINER.
. [The attempt of the Daily News* to twist our general observations into an accusation against it of disloyalty will not bear examination. We had no wish to make any such. accusation against the Daily News, nor do we think that any reasonable person reading our paragraph, though it was necessarily compressed, would imagine that we intended to do so.. But though we did not, and do not, accuse the Daily News of disloyalty, the general effect of its sneers at Mr. Campbell would, we felt,. have the effect described by one of its own correspondents whose letter, protesting against the Daily News article on Mr. Campbell, and signed " Free Churchman," appeared in its issue of March 23rd. Here are " Free Churchnian's " • own words :—" As for Mr. Campbell's presentation to the Severeign, since when has 'it been an article of 'faith with Nonconformists that their representatives must needs be more disloyal than Anglican Churchmen, or that differences of religious opinion must make friendship impossible between professing Chris- tians P Was not Mr. Price Hughes himself formally presented at Court P" This letter, we may mention, was published by the Daily News without protest, note, or comment of any kind, though its tone is far stronger than that of our paragraph. We are satisfied to leave our readers to determine whether the attacks made on Mr. Campbell were or were not " senseless: and vulgar." If the Daily .News, instead of 'finding an imaginary charge of disloyalty against itself in our remarks, had, as we suggested, frankly apologised to Mr. Campbell for its personal attack on him, it would have done nothing to lower itself in the opinion of men of good sense and good feeling, whether Nonconformists or Church- men.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
