Sir Charles Dilke.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 438, 8 April 1890, Page 3

Sir Charles Dilke.

[stab bfxcul] London, February 6. That Sir Charles Dilke’* opponents have no notion of forgetting the unproven charges against him, and permitting one of the ablest of living politicians to resume a career of great usefulness, is conclusively proved bv the fact that, with the exception of the Daily News and one or two Gladstonian papers, “ Problems of Greater Britain ” has been uni. versa!! v “ boycotted ”by tbe press. Of course, the Times gave the initial cue. Sir Charles forwarded a copy of the work to Printing House Square (addressing it to Mr Buckle by name) a week before the ordinary issues for review were sent out, and how eagerly he scanned the columns of the leading journal tor the anticipated notice, morning after morning, may well be imagined. I confess it would never have occurred to me to suspect our leading editors of taking such an uncharitably vindictive and contemptibly narrow-minded course. Has it, then, come to this, that a great man who sins against our moral code is not merely to be eternally banned socially and politically, but prevented (as far as possible) from exercising for the benefit ot his fellows, any of the intellectual gifts with whioh God has endowed him ? How tar this partial press boycott will injure the most important work on the colonies published for many years, remains to be seen. I am afraid the effect will be pretty bad. Sir Charles’s complaisance to the leading Anglo-Colonial journalists ot Ute is now explained. Evidently he foresaw a possible "boycott," and wished to make sure that even if the book tell dead in England it would bs read in the colonies.

A special colonial edition is in preparation, and will be despatched to your part ot ths world in about a fortnight. Whether Sir Charles visits the Australian colonies next autumn will, from what I can learn, greatly depend on the amount of appreciation with whioh his work is received. Tims has in no way dulled this man's sensitiveness with regard to bis misfortunes. Every demonstration 0! tbe implacable moralists who insist on his permanent suppression out him to the quick, and bow seriously the boycott of his book will pain and chagrin both himself and Lady Dilke, “one can only guess. Many men would have tired under such relentless prosecution, and sternly abandoned all intereat in politics for ever. Sir Charles Dilke cannot. He is a crack shot, a good rider, a flue all-round athlete, the best fencer (with foils) in England, (yet neither hunting, ehooting, athletics, nor the life of a country gentleman have sufficed m more than temporary distractions. The man’s heart and Intellect are alike concentrated On politic*, and his great hope la that Mil Crawford auy wntedar Mpmt, Ind by » terify «»■

fession enable him to resume his career in the Commons. That Sir Charles Dilke was not a Joseph is, of course, admitted (that was what complicated his position so), but that the charges laid at his door by Mrs Crawford were correct, I never have believed, and never ehall believe.