TARIFFITE VICTORY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 447, 4 March 1909, Page 5

TARIFFITE VICTORY.

IN SCOTLAND. LIBERALS LOSE GLASGOY/ CENTRAL. A BIG MAJORITY. (BT TELEGRAPH —TRESS ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT.) (Roc. March 3, 11.10 p.m.) London, March 3. Tho by-election for Central Glasgow, rendered vacant by the death of Sir Andrew M. Torrance (Liberal), resulted as follows Mr. C. Scott-Dickson (Unionist)... 7298 Mr. Thos. C. Bowles (Liberal)... 5185 Unionist majority 2113 Mr. Bowles (who, it was previously reported, was putting Homo Rule before frectrado, in order to'secure the Irish vote) kept frcetrado predominant. The "Glasgow Herald," sinking tho fiscal issue for the time being, supported Mr. ScottDickson. Tho London Liberal papers, "Daily News" and "Chronicle," claim lias happended is merely that a Tory seat, won by tho Liberals when freetrade was in danger, has reverted to Toryism now that frectrado lias a majority of 300 in the Houso of Commons. Tho Opposition is jubilant in having secured the first victory for tariff reform in Scotland since tho general elections of 1906.

TAs has been previously pointed out. Central Glasgow was firmly held by the Unionists from 1886 till 1906, and in tho latter year was lost by onlv 131 votes; since when, the pendulum of the by-elections has swung against Literalism. Therefore the rewlt, while disappointing to Liberals, has no doubt not surprised them very much. Still, the conversion of a Liberal majority of 431 into a Unionist majority of 2113 represents a huge turnover ot Scottish votes. The Unionists had the advantage of having a strong local man as candidate, while the Liberal cause was defended by Mr T G Bowles, ex-Unionist. The new member represented Bridgeton division of Glasgow in the Unionist interest from 1900 till 1906, when he was ousted by Mr. R. Cleland, who turned BJa Unionist majority of 961, into a Liberal maioritv of 1566. Mr Scott-Dickson was horn in Glasgow on September 13, 1850, was SolicitorGeneral from 1896 to 1903. and Lord-Advocate from 1903 till his defeat in 1906.]

tariff'ites and freetraders. "BETTER STAND DOWN." (BT TELEGRAPH —PUES9 ASSOCIA THIS-CM'TltflHT.) London, March 2. Sir, Alexander Acland-Hood, Conservative member for' tho Wellington division of Somerset, and an advanced tariff reformer, addressed a tariff reform gathering at St. Stephen's, Cornwall. Dealing with the fiscal issue at the next general elections, ho deprecated the proposal of tho Unionist freetraders to appeal to their constituencies on the basis that, if thoy were elected, and if they found themselves unable to support a tariff reform Budget, they would resign and offer themselves for re-election. It would, he said, bo a better course for tho Unionist freetraders to stand down altogether at tho nest general elections. DESIGNS OF THE "CONFEDERATES." Tho Unionist party is in some danger of cleavage through the efforts of the extreme tariff reformers, called the "Confederates," to oust the Unionist Freetraders from the party. The "Confederates" hold that the Unionists can win without the aid of the Unionist Freetraders—or " freefooders," to adopt a narrower designation—and the middle section of the party has a difficult task to hold tho balahce between the two wings. Moderate counsels continually point out that the Unionist party has other objections besides tariff reform. In their strugglo for a fiscal freedom, (insistent with party loyalty, a number of Unionist Freetraders have proposed tho course which Sir Alex. Acland-Hood deprecates. For instance, Lord Robert Cecil, Unionist member for East Marylebone, recently declared The whole question of my attitude to tariff reform was discussed by tho Marylebone Constitutional Union last spring, and an arrangement was arrived at which was accepted by a majority of nearly ten to one, certainly more than nine to one. So far as I am aware nothing has since occurred to alter that position. Broadly speaking the arrangement was that if I could not see my way clear to voting for a Budget brought in by tho Unionist party I would resign my scat, and thus give my constituents an opportunity of considering the position further. It was cabled from London on January 21 that the Central Office of the Conservative party will withhold official support from Unionist candidates who are unable to endorse tho policy of tariff reform laid down by Mr. Balfour at Birmingham in 1907. This cablegram appeared, on the face of it, to indicate that the "Confederates" had had their way and that the Freetraders were under the ban. But reports appearing in "Confederate" newspapers to hand by mail state an important reservation, in that the Central Office will not interfere in this matter with the decisions of the Conservative local associations. Tho "Daily Mail" states:— "Local associations will, as before, select their candidates, and the Central Office will not veto tho selection of one who is not a tariff reformer or run a tariff reformer against him. The decision must, however, be accepted as an indication of the attitude of those who are in a great measure responsible for the success of tho Unionist party at tho next general election.

" Tho Central Office has no official connection with' the group of Unionist tariff reformers who are known as tho 'Confederates,' and whoso mission is to oppose by every means in their power any Unionist candidate who is not a tariff reformer, whether he appears as Freetrader or under tho guise of freefooder. At a meeting of tho Executive Committee of the Unionist Freetradc members of Parliament, it was resolved that every effort should be made to support existing' M.P.'s who may be attacked by the 'Confederates.'"

Liberal papers assert, of course, tho contrary—that is, that the "Confederates" have "worked" the Central Office. The "Standard" retorts:—"Tho action of the Central Conservative Office in not regarding as 'official' thoso Conservative candidates who do not accept the full policy of the leaders is being misrepresented by tho Radical press, The policy of the office has been never interfere with the local associations; its action and attitudo in a matter of this kind aro purely negative. If applied to on behalf of a non-official Conservative candidate,, it would, doubtless, abstain from helping, but there is not, and never has been, any intention of institnting opposition to him, or of supporting such opposition, unloss the local association should put forward a candidate of its own who should fulfil all the conditions of full party membership." ' CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. A TARIFF REFORM RESOLUTION. London, March 2. Tho Associated Chambers of Commetco of tho United Kingdom voted as follows on a resolution favouring tariff reform:— For the resolution 46 Against the resolution 31 Majority for ... ... 15 Thirty-two delegates remained neutral. [The Chambers of Commerce Association of the United Kingdom represents 111 Chambers of Commerco. The association has a rulo providing that "no action shall be taken by the association in its collective capacity except on a resolution carried by a majority of two-thirds of tho votes given thereon." Therefore no action can be taken on this motion in favour of tariff reform. As a matter of fact, the association in March of last year dealt in the same way with a similar motion, the voting being: For, 40, against, 30; noutTal, 81.]