[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR "' must confess that I
had underestimated the magna• nimity of the Spectator, for I had little expectation that you would publish my letter of last week on the above subject. • For your courtesy in doing so I beg to thank you. But from your
editorial comment, it seems to follow that " when the Unionist party abandon Chamberlainism" you will be "perfectly satisfied with a declaration" from, say, Mr. Balfour that he has " no intention of making any proposals to alter our present fiscal system," even if such declaration be coupled with an assurance that "neither he nor any other leader of the Unionist party had ever gone back either in spirit or letter on" Mr. Chamberlain's tariffs policy. If such an
announcement would suffice to satisfy you that its author had become a bond-fide convert to Free-trade in the sense of un- restricted imports, then, of course, I quite admit that you are logically justified in accepting as satisfactory Mr. Asquith's analogously qualified abjuration of Home-rule.—I am, Sir, &c., H. C. Inwiw.
we adhere :—
" As practical people, we are quite content with Mr. Asquith's acknowledgment of this fact. To expect more of political human nature is absurd. When the Unionist party abandon Chamberlainism, as we hope and believe they will, we shall not expect them to abandon Mr. Chamberlain's object of drawing closer the bonds that unite us with the Colonies. We shall be perfectly satisfied with a declaration that they have no inten- tion of making any proposals to alter our present fiscal system, and do not mean to propose the establishment of a Protective tariff."
We said nothing as to being satisfied with a declaration by Mr. Balfour, and did not mention his name.—En. Spectator.] LADY NELSON AND GALLIC CHIVALRY.
Previous page
