As soon as Crooks heard of this he wrote to Mr. Chamberlain:-- SIR,--I do not for a moment think you deliberately misquoted the words I used at Leith, but whoever sent you the information is absolutely without excuse for the blunder. For what I said I have said in twenty different parts of the kingdom to tens of thousands of our fellow-countrymen--viz. "that even if, as Mr. Chamberlain suggests, the Colonies do desire Preference, it is no reason why the poor of Great Britain should pay more for their bread to help those Colonies which have no poor, or certainly no poverty compared with the poverty we have in this country." This, as you will note, makes a very great difference in the reading of your quotation of what I really did say. I am, yours truly, WILL CROOKS. In reply Mr. Chamberlain sent a tardy apology, thus:-- SIR,--I have your letter of December 17th, and in reply I beg to say that the statement which you say you have repeatedly used is in no sense inconsistent with the statement which you were reported to have made at Leith, and which referred not to the Colonies but to foreign countries. Unfortunately, I have only the extract which was sent to me and not the whole speech, and of course if you deny having used the words which I quoted I most readily accept your contradiction. I am, yours faithfully, JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN. A fallacy very popular with Protectionists was neatly dealt with by Crooks at a meeting of the London County Council. One of the Moderate members asked whether an assurance could be given that certain tramway materials would be of British manufacture. The reply was that since the Council worked under Free Trade conditions, no such assurance could be given. "Will not trade union conditions be observed?" inquired another Moderate member. "Yes." "Do you call that acting on a Free Trade basis?" "Some members," interposed Crooks, "seem to identify trade union conditions with Protection." "Quite right too," shouted the Moderate. "Yes," came Crooks's retort; "but the one kind of Protection is the protection of the workers against the sweater, and the other kind is the protection of the sweater against the workers." CHAPTER XXVI PREPARING FOR THE UNEMPLOYED ACT Principles for dealing with Unemployed--Twenty-four Per Cent. of Poplar's Wage-earners out of Work--Folly of Stone-breaking and Oakum-picking--Public Warning by Crooks and Canon Barnett--How Crooks used a Gift of £1,000. Crooks's three years in Mr. Balfour's Parliament had a remarkable triumph in the Unemployed Act. No one needs reminding that the measure was introduced by the Government; but as the sequel will show, it is doubtful whether it would have seen the light, and it is certain it would never have been passed but for his untiring advocacy.