"THOSE OF US WHO ARE IN FAVOUR OF COLONIAL PREFERENCE."
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—In your issue of June 25th Mr. Balfour's phrase, "Those of us who are in favour of Colonial Preference," is assumed, in my opinion quite unjustly, to mean what it need not at all necessarily mean. Does not Mr. Balfour's "us" refer to the whole of his audience,—in fact, to the House of Commons? And does not "those of us who" mean only "those Members of the House of Commons who " ? The words contain no proof that Mr. Balfour includes himself among the number of the " ChamberIainites." It seems to me, therefore, that there is nothing whatever in the phrase to justify your criticism of it as being "a very remarkable state- ment," and an "admission made when for a moment Mr. Balfour was off his guard." Nor do I consider that your view is rendered in any way more tenable by the fact that the Prime Minister did not "repudiate Mr. Asquith's suggestion in clear and specific terms." He could not bring himself to suggest that Mr. Asquith honestly thought that this simple and ordinary phrase "threw a new light on the whole aspect of the Fiscal question " ; nor was he there to teach so eminent a member of the Opposition the English language. I do not say that Mr. Balfour is not a "Chamberlainite," but I do contend that these particular words of his cannot, as you say they can, "fairly be claimed as an indication that Mr. Balfour
is a Chamberlainite.' "—I am, Sir, &c., A. C.
[If Mr. Balfour were not a Chamberlainite, is it possible that he would not have taken so good an opportunity as that given him by Mr. Asquith to get rid of so widespread a mis- apprehension? If Mr. Balfour is not a Chamberlainite, his refusal to make the position clear is, to say the least of it, strangely perverse and unnatural. If he is one, however, but does not think "the proper time" has yet come for letting it be known, there is nothing but what is quite natural in his conduct.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
