[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—lleaders of Mr.
Daniel's letter may be led to wonder if be, and those who may share his views, have ever read any history; or if he has ever heard of Michael Thomas Sadler or Richard Oastler, or Lord Shaftesbury or Tom Hughes, or (to go further hack) of John Howard and Elizabeth Fry, to name but a very few of those who have devoted their lives to promoting the welfare, not of their own class, but of others. Can Trade Unions produce any similar instances ? Mr. Daniel teems to attach some stigma to hyphenated names, and says there is " not one single Labour leader" who bears such a de,ignation; and yet I should have supposed that " Keir Hardie" came very near it. He apparently attributes all good social legislation to Trade Unions, and can see no difference between measures for the good of the community at large (for which he uses the equivocal word " society ") and those for the exclusion of the masses from the benefits of one class. Evidently Mr. Daniel is a strong advocate of monopoly. To explain to him the full meaning of his sweeping generalities would require a whole number of the Spectator, but he may be recommended to study the rudiments of the subject and to " verify his references."—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN MURRAY. :4 Albemarle Street, W. 1.