POLITICAL HEAT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1030, 20 January 1911, Page 4

POLITICAL HEAT.

Our latest English files contain but too much evidence that the general election which was in progress when the mail left London was accompanied, like that which was held at thcbegjnning of the year, with such virulent and unrestrained language as had previously" been supposed to characterise the political strife of none but. more backward peoples. The' English tongue has gained a new word—"LimeHousing" —which needs no definition, but the Chancellor of tho Exchequer has not been tho only immoderate speaker, nor has the fault-been confinod to any. one party, l'unch—that keen, though genial, critic of manners —hit off the now tendency in a cartoon which showed two bill-posters putting up side by side two placards of identical size and style, one headed "Another Radical Lie" and tho other "Another Tory Lie." Foreign countries, as shown by the comment, of their newspapers, were amazed, and asked, "Has England lost its head?" By way of. illustration, we may mention an "argument" of Colonel Seely, _ who _ appears to have been emulating his colleague of Limehouse fame. Our readers may remember a cabled report of the fact that the Duke of Wellington's son rescued a poor woman from drowning. Lord Rosebery, in his speech at Manchester, used this incident to illustrate the simple truth that the aristocracy arc not without their virtues. Colonel Seely, in a. subsequent speech, represented Lord Rosebery as having suggested that a bravo action by the. son of a Duke showed that Dukes ought to govern the . country, and then. proceeded to, re-, 'late a' valiant act performed by . a negro. "Loud laughter," of course, followed his question whether the House of Lords ought to consist of black m?n. Thus cncouragcd, 110 added that a.-black House of Lords could not be worse than the present white one—which is a finer House, as Colonel Seely, Mr. LloydGeorge, . and everybody else cheerfully admits in private, or unon occasions when they are not appealing to a mob, than it was 25 years ago, when Mr. John Bright declared that there were 100.sitting Peers as good as any like body of men in the elected' Chamber.' Some of the best newspapers on both sides protested against the increasing use of personal vitupera.tion. The Manchester Guardian complained that Ministers of the Crown had been called "marionettes," "pantaloons," "highwaymen," "Limehouso blackguards" (by j Sir Edward Oarson, member , for Dublin University), and' ""specialists in offal" (by Me. F. E. Smith), while Mr. J. L. Garvin, editor of the Observer, was ' responsible for "poodles and jackals" and "Buffalo' bagmen." The Manchester Guardain commented: •. .-■ , . .. It is melancholy to cdntrast this "spitting out of dirt by the yard" (to use tho elegant phrase of tho member for Dublin University) witli tho invective of the masters of political oratory—of Burke, for instance, qr , Gladstone, or Jlr. Chamberlain. These men had all the scorn which comes from a.fino fervour as the driving forco behind their words. They wero sincere, and sincerity does not need to clothe itself in the language of tho gutter. These remarks arc quoted with general approval by' the Spectator,} which, however, adds, fairly enough, that "the Manchester Guardian might have made'the list more convincing still by culling some fine flowers of rhetoric from Mr. LloydGeorge's speeches." Thus, at Mile End. Mr.. Lloyd-George, said: "Aristocracy is like cheese, the older it is the higher it becomes"; "Australia would say they would rather have a Senate of kangaroos than be governed by men like that." He also compared the House of Lords to "an. old tram'.horse—-they are fitting lip electric wires to his tail." During the previous' election campaign, Mil'. Lloyd-George ?aid of Lord George Hamilton: "Like most aristocrats, he is probably something of a mongrel." Of certain other Peers he said that they ought to have been gentlemen before they became noblemen. He. also said that Lords required no testimonial, but' only a certificate of birth to prove that they were "tho first of the- litter." The Spectator' 6 list might, of course, bo extended. We commented the other day upon Mr. Lloyd-George's offensive reference' to the aristocracy and "American clollai's." The reply of the Duke of Marlborough, whom tho Chancellor pilloried in this connection, cannot be regarded as an example of moderation. "Nearly three years ago," he said, "Mr. Lloyd-George stayed with me at Blenheim, and at that time I must have thought him a, gentleman, but he seems to have since reverted to typo and become himself." Neither the excitement of electioneering, nor even tho 'importance of the struggle, is a sufficient excuse for all this, and vet it'is well to remember that to be.greatly stirred by great public issues is no mean condition. "Fight to-morrow with your votes, or next year you will have to fight with your swords.'' Those 1 words, addressed by a Radical newspaper to its readers, were auot-edl

the next morning by a Conservative journal, which applied them as an exhortation to its own party. Wc suppose that neither side is* at tliis moment talking in the same way about fighting with swords, but so long as the party system is relied upon for getting questions threshed out, it is natural that the greater the question Uie more intense should be_ tho feeling engendered. Nothing would bo more alarming than to see far-reaching constitutional issues, such as were lately before the British electors, decided by people who were too apathetic to contradict each other. In the present stage of human advancement no nation can get much political light without the production of a great deal of political heat. Tho pity of it is that much of the heat merely scorches instead of being turned into power. Is it impossible, one cannot help asking one&elf, that the leaders on both sides should agree between themselves to forego the delights of vituperation? Were they to do so, the rank and file would not dare to offend. We have often noted the fact that Mr. Asquitii is a model of dignity and decency in his speeches, like many of his colleagues, just as Mr. Baitour and many of the other Unionist leaders are. Why cannot Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. F. E. Smith, Mr. Churchh.l and Sir Ed"ward Cassox copy the manners of their chicfs 1