TO TER EDITOR Or TEE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR, —You have generously disavowed
any idea which might have been drawn from your headlines that the Society of Friends are responsible for the conduct of that portion of the Press which is under the influence of Messrs. Cadbury and Rowntree. There still, however, stands on record your suggestion that Quakers should in a corporate capacity condemn the practices to which you have called attention, and you apparently regret with " An Old-Fashioned Friend " that the days of disownment for such actions are probably things of the past. lifany of us deeply regret the procedure which has given rise to your justifiable strictures, and the views of members of the Society will no doubt be laid privately before those concerned. At the same time, and while I am in no way entitled to speak for Quakers as a whole, I believe it will be widely felt that it is no part of the work of a body whose functions should be spiritual to act as censor in matters which are not primarily breaches of the moral law, and which should be, therefore, left to the individual consciences of its members. For a society to arrogate to itself such functions would, as I trust you will on reflection yourself consider, be capable of indefinite expansion and abuse, and in no way tend to real progress or health.—I am, Sir, &c.,
A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.
[Our correspondent is right, and we were wrong. On reflection we see that we made a suggestion which ought not to have been made when we expressed a hope that the Society of Friends should take action.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
