LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE NEW HEAT OF PARTISANSHIP.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sis,—I have read with interest and general agreement your observations on the sensitiveness of partisans, and the un- pleasant social relations which present political differences unfortunately cause, notwithstanding the progress of culture and the decline of virulence in controversy. The true reason I believe is, though Lord Rosebery says it is not, that we are really separated from our old friends by irreconcilably different ethical conceptions. We cannot, experience teaches us, quietly exchange suggestions for overcoming the difficulties which are evident to us in Ireland without yielding to the temptation of reminding our friend that we have heard him say the contrary of what he now says a short time ago, and this very soon leads to irritation and unpleasantness.
I leave aside the numerous class who sincerely believe that means can be found of shirking plain duties by the repetition of amiable phrases. I am talking now of professional poli- ticians who have thought it their duty to follow Mr. Gladstone; their conversation is utterly unprofitable and uninteresting; while they talk we have an uncomfortable conviction that they would defend the opposite view if they thought it necessary for party purposes. We cannot consistently with the rules of politeness tell them so; we are obliged to listen in silence, and • this is irksome.
Not long ago I reminded a friend that I had heard him say, when Mr. Gladstone was in office, the contrary of all he was now saying. I was driven to say this by the ironical tone he assumed in ridiculing Unionist opinions ; he lost his temper, and the discussion became unpleasant. You cannot explain to a professional politician that nothing would induce you to do anything mean, base, or cowardly—for example, to throw the loyal population of Ireland to the wolves—even if by so acting you could obtain office. The professional politician expects us to pretend respect for him, and the troth is that
we do not respect him ; hence the social difficulty, and the obligation of silence on these absorbing topics, which, at the same time, are so difficult to avoid.
Sir George Trevelyan does not agree with Lord Rosebery,. and has frequently said that he feels himself separated from the Unionists by different notions of morality and duty. There I agree with him. I am quite aware that my Glad- stonian friends consider me a prig, a pedant, a pharisee, and a bore. The social code forbids the preaching of sermons during a dinner-party, or the assumption of more austere principles than those of other guests ; hence our difficulty, and the disappointing discovery that the presence of one Gladstonian entirely spoils the easy flow of pleasant conversation. Not long ago a Gladatonian friend told me that reading the Spectator caused him unusual irritation from the tone of superior morality which you, Sir, assume, and with which, let me say, I feel myself quite in harmony.
Many of Mr. Gladstone's followers are now not happy in the society into which he has dragged them, and the views and methods they are obliged to defend ; but they wish to be con- sistent, to stick to the new flag, and this produces soreness and irritability in the tone of their conversation, and makes social intercourse tiresome. Professor Dicey of Oxford, and Professor Seeley of Cambridge, are neither of them professional politicians, and both of them clearly see that we are separated from the Parnellite faction, not by divergent views of policy and administration, but by different ideas of duty and morality. Let me quote a passage from Professor Seeley's address to the Unionists at Cambridge On February 15, 1889 :—" Now they are transformed, and we can no longer recognise our old friends, not only their views, but their whole way of thinking and acting ; their moral tone seems to us to have 'altered; it seems to us that they have lost much of their regard for truth, that they have ceased to be very scrupulous in the means they employ. We are astonished at the principles they profess, and we ask ourselves whether they really always held the anarchical doctrines which they now so indignantly assert to be the only true Liberalism.'
We are angry with Mr. Gladstone because we feel that he- has lowered the tone of our political life ; his followers are unable to appreciate the motives which keep us from joining them and restoring him to power. The differences which divide us lie too deep to be easily reconciled, and must be borne with patience and hope.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
