[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sfa,—You do not charge Sir Rufus Isaacs or Mr. Lloyd George with corruption, but apparently hold that they deserve censure because there was in their transactions in American Marconis something calculated to cause that growth of suspicion in the public mind which Ministers ought to avoid, and you indicate that a public wrong will be done if the Cabinet refuses to express, or to allow the House of Commons to express, disapproval of what has happened. You also, in the case of Mr. Lloyd George, make a charge of lack of delicacy and discretion. If you are right in the view you take of the matter, what ought to be your attitude towards the Unionist Party so long as it holds the full Tariff Reform policy, even though the method is to postpone preferential taxes on food till after a second election ? Will there not he a marked lack of delicacy if any member of the Govern- ment holds agricultural or pastoral land, or is a shareholder in any company manufacturing goods which are to be pro- tected by import duties, and will there not be much more ground for suspicion of corruption than there is in this Marconi affair ? Will you, then, as a condition of your con- tinued support of the party, call for a pledge that no such landholder or shareholder will be eligible for a seat in the Cabinet ? In addition to the economic argument against Protection, is not the great danger of corruption a very strong argument, and have you not frequently advanced it
yourself F—I am, Sir, &c., CONSISTENCY. [This is, in our opinion, a conspicuous case of false analogy. We publish our correspondent's letter, however, on the principle that it is right to hear both sides.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
