[TO THY EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Mr. Ward Humphreys's letter is an interesting supple- ment to the somewhat meagre reports which appeared of the National Union Conference. That at a gathering composed almost entirely of " food-tax chaps " a 10s. duty on wheat should have been advocated is hardly to be wondered at ; nor is one surprised to read that these gentlemen fell out among themselves as to the mode in which the sums that are going to be levied at the Customs under Protection are to be divided. The reports of the meeting show that in his plucky attempt to maintain Free-trade principles Mr. Humphreys was howled down. He also, I believe, lost his seat on the Council. The entire proceedings show that the delegates of Conservative Associations throughout the country intend to give no quarter politically to Unionist Free-traders. In this there is no doubt they are true representatives of those who send them to the Conference. Their champion is Mr. Chamberlain, and it is with Mr. Chamberlain we have to deal. The mere fact that Mr. Balfour is claimed by both parties shows clearly that his position is ambiguous. From a party point of view his tactics may have been very skilful, but when the day of reckoning comes all the niceties and complications of the situation will be swept aside, and the momentous question, Free-trade or Protection ? will have to be decided by the majority of voters to whom ideas of mere party loyalty are not the chief con- sideration. Personally, I bold that the Protectionist party should be considered without animus. They have for many years past formed a majority of the Conservative party. The Fair-trade agitation of the early " eighties " was undoubtedly a popular movement, though it fizzled out, because on coming into office the Conservative leaders agreed with Lord Beaconsfield that Protection was damned, and also, no doubt, because the Home-rule agitation held the field. The cause has now been taken up by the leading politician of the day, and naturally all honest Protectionists are jubilant. That a majority of the Liberal Unionist party, whose strong point was always considered to be intellect, should also have rallied to what to them is a new faith is less explicable. To those Unionists who are Free-traders the duty which you have always urged upon them seems, if possible, to be clearer than ever. To those who look on Protection as a greater evil than war it seems idle to talk of party loyalty and the danger of this or that Radical scheme. To justify them in voting, if necessary, for Radical candidates, Unionists can quote Mr. Chamberlain's own words to the defeated Tariff Reformer in West Monmouth, and not "sacrifice Imperial interests to petty questions of local politics or party ambition."—With apologies for trespassing on your space, which, I fear, is now likely to be somewhat encroached upon sinde the undoubted Tariff Reform victory of the purchase of the Standard has deprived the Unionist Free-trade party of its powerful daily
advocate, I am, Sir, &c., E. M. RosE. 5 Belgrave Mansions, Abbey Road, N.W.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR:1
Previous page
