questions violent
and needless. But they are not attacking his questions. They are
attacking his letter, which contains nothing that I do not think,
probably nothing that you do not think. Lea is to be humiliated and
broken because he said that titles are bought; as they are: because
he said that poor members are reminded of their dependence on the
party funds; as they are: because he said that all this was hypocrisy
of public life; as it is. . . .

One thing is quite certain. Unless some Liberal journalists speak
on Monday or Tuesday, the secret funds and the secret powers are
safe. These Parliamentary votes mark eras: they are meant to. And
that vote will not mark a defence of C. B. The letter had nothing to
do with C. B. It will mark the final decision that any repetition of
what Lea said in his letter is an insult to the House. That is, any
protest against bought titles will be an insult to the House. Any
protest against secret funds will be an insult to the House.

I would willingly burn my article if I were only sure you would
publish one yourself tomorrow on the same lines. But if not, here is
at least one thing you can do. An article, even signed, may perhaps
commit the paper too much. But your paper cannot be committed by
publishing a letter from me stating my opinions. It might publish a
letter from Joe Chamberlain, stating his opinions. I therefore send
you a short letter, pointing out the evil, and disassociating it as
far as possible from the indiscretions of Lea. I am sure you will
publish this, for it is the mere statement of a private opinion and
as I am not an M. P. I can say what I like about Parliament. You will
not mind my confessing to you my conviction and determination in this
matter. I do not think we could quarrel, even if we had to separate.

The letter was published, and was quoted in the House of Commons by
Lord Robert Cecil amid general applause. But it was twenty years
before a Bill was passed that forbade this particular unpleasantness.

While political corruption stirred Chesterton deeply, I think his
outlook was even more affected by the progressive Socialism of
Liberal legislation. He had honestly believed that the Liberal Party
stood, on the whole, for liberty. He found that it stood increasingly
for daily and hourly interference with the lives of the people. He
found too that the Liberal papers, which