[To TER Enrron Or TRW "SPROTAT014,1 Sr,—Your highly admirable and
convincing article under this head (Spectator, May 20th) proves forcibly how in- creasingly impossible it is for one to be merely an out-and- out party man. Your arguments are calculated, and rightly so, to sway the opinion of many "small Navy" sincere Liberals, and yet how are these to vote ? On the one hand they feel that the Liberal Party is that which makes for 8(44 reform and is doing much to that end, and a party that stands or falls by Free-trade, however much it may in- advertently play into the hands of the Protectionists. What can be done in such a case when the Liberal Government definitely decides to vote a "contingent" and not an invincible Navy. A Liberal dare not and cannot vote for Protection, for monopoly and vested interests, for dilatory social reform. The question I would ask, Sir, is whether he must adopt a merely negative utilitarian attitude and reason it that the happiness and welfare of the millions at home are more to be considered than the case instanced, the Congo Free State ; in a word be (the Radical) will argue that evil will be done (enormous moneys expended on armaments) that good may come to, say, the Congo Free State. Is this not a great question and grand opportunity for a Referendum P—I am,
Previous page
