LORD HUGH CECIL AND THE POSITION OF FREE-TRADE MEMBERS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.".1
Si,—As a Unionist Free-trader, I have nothing but admira- tion for your advocacy of Free-trade principles. But I cannot see how you can logically support (January 13th issue) such a candidate as Lord Hugh .Cecil, and yet maintain that Free. trade is the paramount issue before the electorate. If the late Member for Greenwich is "a loyal supporter of Mr. Balfour," he must, of necessity, be a " Balfourite " as far as the Fiscal question is concerned. If A supports B, even if only in a passive way, and I am a supporter of A, then naturally I am also partly a supporter of B. The position of Unionist Free-trade M.P.'s is certainly a difficult one if modern precedent is to be followed. In 1886 many Liberal Members of the House of Commons became Unionists—left the party on one subject only, i.e., the unity of the Empire—but almost consistently voted Conservative on all other subjects, in- cluding matters of social legislation, and this in succeeding Parliaments. Is such a policy to be pursued by future Free- trade Members? If not, why not The present Free-trade Government will need just as much continued support as did the Unionist Government of 1886.-1 am, Sir, &c.,
FREE-TRA.DE UNIONIST.
[We admit that Lord Hugh Cecil's attitude towards Mr. Balfour was most unsatisfactory,—an anachronism which cannot possibly be defended on logical grounds. Lord Hugh Cecil had, however, done such good work for Free-trade in the country and in the House of Commons that we could not but desire his presence in Parliament, even though we deplored his incomprehensible loyalty to an anti-Free-trade chief.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
