[To TUE EDITOR Or TEE " SPECTATOR. n i
Sts,—The letter of the Duke of Devonshire on behalf of the Unionist Free-Food League has given .rise to extraordinary comments from some persons who profess their attachment to the cause advocated by that body. The League had pressed the Duke to become its President in the well-grounded belief that if he led the movement there would be no more hesita- tion or delay in its operations. At the Queen's Hall the Duke declared, amidst the universal cheering of Free-fooders, that he would "oppose with all his might" Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. Within a very few weeks a candidate advocating Mr. Chamberlain's policy contests a suburban constituency; and a member of the Free-Food League speaks for his opponent—a Liberal—on his own responsibility, and there- after writes to the secretary of the League hoping he has not unfairly compromised that body, and asking advice as to how Unionist Free-fooders should vote in such cases. Now what possible answer, other than the advice of the Duke, could be given P Can it really be suggested that the Free-Food League ought to urge Unionist Free-fooders to vote for the Chamber- lainite P If such an answer had been given, the League might just as well have put up its shutters at once ! No, Sir! The battle for Free-trade versus Protection cannot be fought on the Free-trade side with blank cartridge. The Free-Food League cannot be accused so far of having acted hastily or with too much zeal. To the great majority of Freelooders, the respect hitherto shown for the faint-hearted few has been excessive. We now, however, have a leader ready to lead, and it is the part of convinced Free-traders to give him their heavy.—I am, Sir, &c., LIBERAL UNIONIST.
[We are glad to print our correspondent's letter, which expresses, with admirable point and conciseness, the views maintained in our columns ever since the Duke of Devon- shire left the Cabinet.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
