[The following letters which have passed between Mr. St. Loa
Strachey and the Duke of Devonshire have been sent to us for publication.]
DEA.R DUKE OF DEvoNsarRE,—May I venture to trouble you with a question in regard to the last passage in your Rawten- stall speech,—a passage which is causing a certain amount of doubt and anxiety among Unionist Free-traders? The passage ta which I allude is that in which you declare "that nothing should induce you, if you were a voter at the next General Election, to give your vote and support to any candidate who refused to pledge himself to a repudiation of the policy which had been explained by Mr. Chamberlain, and which had been aiopted as the programme of the Tariff Reform League." This has been taken, erroneously as I cannot help believing, as an injunction that the most your followers may do at an election where the Unionist candidate is a supporter of the Chamberlain policy is to abstain from voting, and that Unionist Free-traders have no right, if they are loyal to you as their leader, to make their Free-trade views effective by supporting a Free-trade candidate by their votes when he is a Liberal and opposed to them on political questions other than Free-trade. May I take a practical and personal
example of what I mean At the recent by-election in the Chertsey division of Surrey the Unionist candi- date was Lord Bingham. As soon as the writ was issued a group of Surrey Unionist Free-traders, with whom I had the honour to act, addressed a communication to Lord Bingham asking him whether he would give us an assurance that he was opposed to the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. Lord Bingham was unable to give us such an assurance, and was supported by many persons who openly declared themselves in favour of the policy of Mr. Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform League. Accordingly the group of Surrey Unionists of whom I have just spoken formed themselves into a Surrey Unionist Free-Trade Committee, and issued an appeal to the electors of the Chertsey division of Surrey. In this appeal we drew attention to Lord Bingham's unwillingness to declare himself opposed to the Chamberlain policy, and to the treat- ment of the Fiscal question in his address,—treatment which showed that he had no intention of opposing the Chamber- lain policy, or of safeguarding Free-trade from the attacks of the Tariff Reformers. We (the group of Unionists in question) went on to declare that Unionist Free-traders had a double duty; (1) to maintain Free-trade ; and (2) to do their best to prevent the Unionist party becoming irrevocably committed to the policy advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. Next we pointed out that at the election then in progress there was only one way in which Unionist Free-traders could make their views effective, and that was by voting for the Free-trade candidate even though he was a Liberal. Abstention could not make our opposition to the Chamberlain policy effective in anything like the same degree. When Free-trade was the essential issue before the electors, as it was at Chertsey, the effective way to oppose Protection was to vote for Free-trade. But though we urged that it was the duty of the Unionist Free- traders on that occasion, and when the Liberal candidate was a man of moderate views and had declared that Home-rule was not before the electors, to vote for Free-trade, we urged as strongly that no Unionist Free-trader ought to join the Liberal party. "They must insist on remaining, as they have every right to remain, both Free-traders and Unionists." We ended our appeal in the following words :—" Therefore we, the undersigned, desire to offer to our fellow Unionist Free- traders the advice given by the great Unionist leader, the Duke of Devonshire, last autumn. We ask them to vote for
the Free-trade candidate, and against the candidate who will not oppose Mr. Chamberlain's policy of Preference and Pro- tection." At the time we issued this appeal we fully believed that we were not misrepresenting our leader's view. And such I still believe to be the case. Since, however, doubts have arisen, and it has been urged that the very most that can be done by any loyal follower of the Duke of Devonshire is to abstain from voting for a candidate who will not oppose the Chamberlain policy, I venture to ask you to let me know whether the action which the Surrey Unionist Free-Trade Committee took at Chertsey is disapproved by you. After what seemed to me the clear and unmistakable tone of your Rawtenstall speech—a speech for which all Unionist Free-traders owe you a very deep debt of gratitude —I hesitate to trouble you with a demand for another detailed declaration of policy. If, however, you should find it possible to state that you do not consider such action as we Unionist Free-traders took at Chertsey disloyal to your leadership, I feel sure that the minds of many of your political adherents would be greatly relieved. If they knew that though they remained Unionists they had, in your opinion, the right to make their Free-trade views effective, they would be prevented from leaving their present party, and could steadily set before them as a political ideal the re-establishment of the Unionist party on a Free-trade basis.—Trusting you will pardon me for having troubled you with so long a letter, I am, yours sincerely, J. Sr. Los STRACHEY. Newland's Corner, Merrow, Guildford. November 14th, 1904.
Previous page
