"We confess that it is with great surprise that we
find the Spectator, having answered our question, proceeding to ask us one on a wholly different subject, about which, for reasons that seem to us sufficient, we have as yet, at all events, not written. Our question to the Spectator was strictly relevant to a subject into which the Spectator had gone in great detaiL It is a wholly different thing for the Spectator to answer our legitimate question, and then to proceed to ask us, in rather menacing language, to say what wo think of their articles on the conduct of the pro- prietors of certain Liberal journals. We do not feel called upon to respond to the invitation. We preserve our freedom to write on the subject if at any time we think it desirable; but, speaking generally, we may say that, for ourselves, we have always hesi- tated to criticise the conduct of newspaper proprietors, as dis- tinguished from the conduct of newspapers. There would be a good deal to say if the subject were dealt with exhaustively, though—to prevent any misunderstanding, which we should regret—we could find nothing but praise for the proprietors of the Spectator. On second thoughts, we fancy the Spectator will see that its question to us was in no way comparable to our question to itself."
Previous page
