THE MEMORY OF GRADSTONE

Shannon News, 22 September 1925, Page 4

THE MEMORY OF GRADSTONE

SONS DEFEND HIS NAME. A LIBEL ON THE DEAD. The day of the duel being dead, and there being no legal method of taking action against a writer who libels the dead, the sons of the Grand Old Man of the Victorian era have been reduced, in order to reach the author (Mr. Peter Wright) of a libel on their dead lather, to publishing a letter to force him to take action against them. It may be added that Mr. Wright, who. was an interpreter to the Supreme War Council, published a book which, according to the words on its jacket, made “reputations go down like ninepins.” This, however, is only by way of an introduction to a correspondence which speaks for itself. The text of the oringinal passage in Mr. Wright’s book (“Portraits and Criticisms”) was: “His fastidious spirit (Lord Salisbury’s) was till further replelled by Liberalism either in its members, who worshipped God and Mammon with equal zeal, assigning Mammon the inward service, and leaving God to content Himself with the outward professions; or, in its leader, Mr. Gladstone, who founded the great tradition since observed by many of his followers and successors with such pioub fidelity in public to speak the language of the highest and strictest principle, and in private to pursue and possess every sort of woman.”

Challenged by the “Nation” to make good this aspersion Mr. Wright fell back on the excuse that he wrote what he did on the authority of .the lato Lord Milner, who said Mr. Gladstone was “governed” by his seraglio.” As the law of libel cannot be invoked in defence of the dead, Lord Gladstone, and Mr. H. N. Gladstone sent a letter to Mr. Wright accusing him of being a coward, a fool, and a liar. The text of the letter was: — “Mr. Peter Wright,—

“Your garbage about Mi-. Gladstone in ‘Portraits and Criticisms’ has come to bur knowledge. You are a liar. Because you slander a~dead man you are a coward. 'And because you think the public will accept inventions from such as you you are a fool. (Signed) “GLADSTONE.” “I associate myself with this letter. (Signed) “H. N. GLADSTONE." MORE LETTERS. Lord Gladstone authorised the publication of the following letters: — 4, Cleveland Square, S.W.I, July 27, 1925.

“Mr. Peter Wright,— “I have seen your letter of N July 23. The public will form its own judgment if you decline to take the only course consistent with honour and truth—action against us in a Court of law. (Signed) “GLADSTONE.” (Signed) “H. N. GLADSTONE.” “My Lord —

“We have received a copy of the letter you have sent to Captain Peter Wright in reference to the statement he has made in “portraits and Criticisms” regarding the late Mr. Gladstone. We should like to state that when thfi work was accepted by us it did not 1 contain the words to which you take exception. Otherwise we should have declined to publish them. The words were inserted by the author in the proof, and it is a matter of the greatest regret to us that they should have escaped our notice when the proof was returned to the printer. “We are, my Lord, yours faithfully, (Signed) “EVELEIGH NASH, AND GRAYSON.” MR. WRIGHT’S REPLY Mr. Wright replied as follows: — “My Lord, — “1 am in receipt of your Lordship’s outburst dated July 22. I attributed to Mr. Gladstone the character of a hypocrite in matters of sex. I have evidence of his conduct as good as any that exists about events in the past. I wrote what I did write on the authority of the late Lord Milner. To use Milner’s own phrase: ‘Mr. Gladstone was governed by his seraglio.’ - This foible had considerable political effects. One affair turned Mr. Gladstone from being a friend of Turkey, and an enemy of Russia, as he was in the fifties, into being a friend of Russia and an enemy of Turkey, as he was in the eighties. “Mr. Gladstone’s hypocritical character (which in no way detracts from his merits as a public financier) is the common—though it may not be the official—reputation of him that has descended to us. It was crystallised in Laboucherc’s famous epigram, ‘that Gladstone might be caught playing cards with a fifth ace up his sleeve, but he would only explain that God had put it there.’ This contemporary reputation is strikingly confirmed by the circumstances of the ■ Parnell case as we now know them. Gladstone not only connived at Parnell’s illicit relations with Mrs. O’Shea, but ultilised them for his own political purposes. Parnell’s sir* was Gladstone’s opportunity. As soon as the misconduct was made known and public in divorce proceedings, Gladstone was foremost in denouncing its immorality.

“This hypocrisy in the case of another is more heinous thian any hypocrisy in the case of himself. Strong temptation might excuse this own departure from his own avowed principles; no such excuse can be found in tlic case 0 f another. Knowing he could commit the greater offence, I do not find it difficult to believe he could commit the smaller. “These various considerations prompted the remarks about Mr. Gladstone at which you take offence. Thus based, my views are unshaken unshaken even by the impact of your lordship’s controversial language, which, if I may say so without impoliteness, must rather have been acquired by practice in your lordship’s pantry than by the exercise of your lordship’s talents for debate in the House of Lords, “I am, your lordship’s obedient servant, “PETER E. WRIGHT.” CAPTAIN PETER WRIGHT. When Captain Peter Wright was

asked by the ‘‘Westminster Gazette” what he thought of Lord Gladstone s letter, he replied: ‘‘l don’t mind Lord Gladstone’s abuse in the least. I don’t think Mr. Gladstone was any different from other Victorian Premiers like Palmerston or Melbourne. To ee the matter at its proper angle, one must look at the actual sentence to which Lord Gladstone took exception. One might think I have called Mr. Gladstone a sort of Tiberius, but it is nothing of the kind. Mr. Gladstone did not, in fact, appeal to those who were austere. His only peculiarity was that he used language of the strictest austerity. In Mr. Morley’s conversations, as reported by Professor Morgan, there is a remarkable dictum on Lord Granville. They were believed, and there is no reason to doubt, that the Premiers to Victoria were not like other great men in every other age.” AN OLD COLLEAGUE.

In an interview with the ‘‘Westminster Gazette,” the Marquis of Lincolnshire, who held important posts in Mr. Gladstone’s Government, said: *‘l fail entirely to understand it. Who is this Mr. Peter Wright? It has caused me nothing but profound astonishment. One of the deepest and most essential traits of Mr. Gladstone’s life was his devotion, beautiful devotion,, to his wife and children. Gladstone was a superman. For many years I had the honour of being one of Mr. Gladstone’s friends and supporters, but I could never have lmgained that any same person could be under such an hallucination as Mr. Peter Wright appears to be.”