over the sale of peerages, he sent in an article on the subject, the
Editor A. G. Gardiner wrote (July 12, 1907):

I have left your article out tonight not because I do not entirely
agree with its point of view but because just at this moment it would
look like backing Lea's unmannerly attack on C. B. I am keeping the
article in type for a later occasion when the general question is not
complicated with a particularly offensive incident.

It was a test case, and it seemed to Chesterton not a question of
good manners, but of something far more fundamental. The assertion
had been made in the House of Commons that peerages were being sold,
and that the price of such sales was the chief support of the secret
party funds. But the _Daily News_ was a Liberal paper and this was an
attack on the Liberal party. Chesterton replied (July 11, 1907):

I am sure you know by this time that I never resent the exclusion
of my articles as such. I should always trust your literary judgment,
if it were a matter of literature only: and I daresay you have often
saved me from an indiscretion and your readers from a bore.
Unfortunately this matter of the party funds is not one of that sort.
My conscience does not often bother you, but just now the animal is
awake and roaring. Your paper has always championed the rights of
conscience, so mine naturally goes to you. If you disagreed with me,
it would be another matter. But since you agree with me (as I was
sure you would) it becomes simply a question of which is the more
important, politeness or political morality. I agree that Lea did go
to the point of being unmannerly. So did Plimsoll, so did Bradlaugh:
so did the Irish members. But surely it would be a very terrible
thing if anyone could say "The _Daily News_ suppressed all demand for
the Plimsoll line," or "The _Daily News_ did not join in asking for
Bradlaugh's political rights." I am sure that this is not your idea.
You think that this matter can be better raised later on. I am
convinced of its urgency. I am so passionately convinced of its
urgency that if you will not help me to raise it now, I must try some
other channel. They are going on Monday to raise a "breach of
privilege" (which is simply an aristocratic censorship of the Press)
in order to crush this question through the man who raised it: and to
crush it forever. I have said that I think Lea's