ENGLAND'S ELECTORAL CRISIS

Evening Star, Issue 14307, 4 March 1910, Page 1

ENGLAND'S ELECTORAL CRISIS

HOW THE GREAT FIGHT WAS WAGED. TARIFF REFORM 'VICTORIES. [From Our Special Correspondent.] LONDON, January 21. The tide of the General Election of 1910 has flowed steadily in favor of the Unionists, but it is practically a ccrta.ir.ty to-day—it anything is certain in politics—that it is impossible for the Tariff Reform party to sail sufficient seats to command a majority in the Parliament that is to be over the combined forces of Liberalism. Ln.bor. Socialism, and the Irish party. It is also .•.ocidedly improbable that the Liberal party will be •' masters in their own house" —that is, for the Government to be independent of the support of the Irish party. Unless all the portents are hopelessly wrong, the official Liberals will not have half the. <wnts in the new House, and the most optimistic oi their partisans do not predict for the Liberal Government a majority of more than 83. This was the number of scats held in the last, Parliament by the Irish party, and it is practically certain that they will return as many members' to the new 'Parliament. Ti-us .t Future Liberal Government would be absolutely at the mercy of the Irish parry. It could bo defeated liot merely by an r. 1 verse vole, but by the Irish refraining from voting, as they did in one notable instance during the last Parliament. The outlook is certainly disquieting, and to-day people i>ro. asking whether we have sono -through all this political turmoil in order to entnrone tho Irish party as dictators in the new Parliament. At the time of writing it certainly look* like it. and the chances of another General Election within the space of a few months appear to be distinctly rosy. Tho polling throughout the country has been very heavy up to date, and no less than 83.1 per cent, of (he total electorate have recorded their votes, as against 82.3 in 1906. The main features of the election have been the great increase in the Unionist and the reduction in the Socialist votes. Tho following tables give the total number of electors who had polled in the 349 English, Welsh, and Scotch constitutencies the returns for which were available this morning, compared with the number of votes recorded in the same constituencies in 1906 :

1910. 1906. Difference. Unionist 1,462.14+ ... 1,230,612 ... +231,532 Liberal ... 1,266,883 ... 1,193,749 >... -f 73,13+ Socialist ... 261,558 ... 320,336 ... During the election there have been some very remarkable " turnovers," chiefly in fieVor of the Unionists. Here are a few results in point:— . Majority, Majority, 1906. 1910. Liberal. Unionist. Sunderland 5,741 - B+s Preston 2,878 ... 1,978 Portsmouth 2,530 ... +,380 Greenwich 1,3+1 ... 1,201 Chatham 2.672 ... 1,281 Kent. Tonbridgo 1,283 ... 3,210 Middlesex, Brentford ... 453 ... 3,856 FIRST BLOOD FOR TARIFF REFORM. The opposing political forces came to grips on Saturday, when 7+ constituencies were polled. Of these, at tho dissolution the Liberals held no less than 56, but as the result of tho day's fight they lost 18, and only gained 3, leaving the Unionists to rejoice over a net sain of 15 seats, three, of their gains being in London. The result was not quite so good as the Tariff Reformers anticipated, for they had calculated on annexing sufficient seats "to frivc them a net gain of 21 on the day. Still, they had done better than iheir opponents had expected them to do, for the Liberals confidently predicted that the Unionists would not .capture enough seats to give them a net gain of more than 12. Moreover, whereas in the case of seats where no change took place in the representation the Unionist majorities were greatlj increased in 12 constituencies and only slightly Teduced in two, their opponents could only claim increased majority in + cases, and had to bewail reductions—very substantial for tho most part—in no less than 28 jconsUuencics. Tho Unionists, indeed, increased their 1906 poll by nearly 43,000. On Monday 10+ seats were at stake, and Ihe Unionists, by winning +8 of them, made a net gain of 1+ seats. They also had the best of the argument in those constituencies where the representatives remained unchanged, for they increased their majority in 20 constituencies and decreased Liberal majorities in 24. On the other hand, the Liberal only reduced the Unionist majorities in 6 cases, "and increased their own in 12. WILL CROOKS'S DEFEAT.

The most notable feature of tho day's work was the rejection of Mr Will Crooks by Woolwich, and tho defeat of Sir John Gorst, Mr Harold Cox, and Mr J ebb. Mr Crooks at tho last election secured a majority of 2,112, and though his friends were somewhat afraid that his "lengthy absence from his constituency would operate against him to some extent, few imagined that he would fail to a sain defeat the Unionist candidate, Major Adams. However, the Labor member failed to keep pace with his opponent, and on a poll of 17,135 out. of a possible 18,438, he was beaten bv 295 votes, the turnover in favor of his rival" being no less than 2.407. In Battersca Mr John Burns had a, very stiff fight iigainst the Unionist, Mr A. S. Bonn, his majority of 1,600 in 1906 being reduced to 555. Mr Augustine Birrell, the only other Cabinet Minister to face the music on Monday, retained his scat at North Bristol, but his majority was reduced by nearly 1,600. As usual, the City of London remained faithful to its tradition?, and returned the two Unionists who represented it in the. last Parliament—namely, the Right Hon. A. .1. Balfour and Sir F. Banbury. They were returned unopposed in 19C6, but thi> time Sir H. Boil unexpectedly threw down the gauntlet on behalf of l-Vetrade. His chance from the outset was hopeless, and he polled only + 623 votes, as against Mr Balfour's 17,907 and Sir F. Banbnrv's 17,302. The former's majority over Hie Liberal was 13.28+, which is probably a record in British elections. One peculiarly interesting contest on Monday was that at. Portsmouth, where Lord Charles Beresford and Mr Becram Falle Hood for tho cause of a strong Navy and Tariff Reform, and won two scats for their party by substantial majorities, involving a turnover of nearly 7,000 votes from the 1906 figures. RADICAL REBUFFS.

On Tuesday polling took place in 50 constituencies, with the result that the Tariff Reformers captured 15 seats, as against the Liberals' 2. In those cases where the representations remained unchanged, the Radical majorities were decreased in 13 instances and increased in 5, whilst ihe opposition had largelv increased majorities in 5 constituencies" and only 3 majorities reduced. The severest rebuff received by the Liberals was perhaps the defeat of Mr Causton, in West Southwark, a seat he has held for the Liberals since 1885. and a constituency that has been consistently Liberal for thirty years. Against this loss, however, the Liberals could well placj the recapture, of fickle Bcrmonrtsey, which at ihe recent bye-election returned lhe Tariff Reformer, Mr 'Dumphreys. by a majority of 987. On Tuesday Mr Dumphreys was decisively beaten by 969 votes, the turnover in tho Liberal favor being 1956!

Of the prominent members of ihe late Government who polled on Tuesday, Mr Winston Churchill greatly increased his majority at Dundee, as did Mr Runciman at Dewsbury, but Colonel Seely, Under-Secre-tary for' the Colonies, was '' the slain," Colonel Challoncr turning a Unionist deficit oi 193 to a Tariff Reform majority of 5?5 in the Aberrromby division of Liverpool. Of other Ministers who polled, Mr Sydney Buxton had his majority reduced in Poplar by ever 1.000, Sir Wm. Robson's fell in Pouth Shields by more than 2,000, and Mr J. A. Dewar, the Scottish Solicitor-General, lost 1,526 votes in Edinburgh. LONDON WAVERING. On Wednesday only thirty-two results were declared, and the Unionists could boast the capture of four scats, including one in Denbigh, where the Liberal member, Mr Clemen: Edwards, lost his seat by 8 votes to ihe Hon. Ormsby-Gorc, ihe turnover of votes

tors who polled. The result, was most unexpected by the Radicals, who had looked for-w.-rd confidently to retaining every Welsh spat. The results in these constituencies whero the representation remained unchanged show that, while the Unionists had increased voles in one placo —Ealing, to wit—the Liberals had increased in nine. Against this may bo set the fact that whereas only one Tariff Reformer half, his majority decreased, no less than fourteen of the successful Liberals were returned with reduced majorities, ranging froni 40 in Central Hackney to 1,659 at Birkenhead. Among the results received on Wednesday was that of the first contested election in Ireland. This resulted in a personal triumph for Mr Wm. O'Brien, who was returned at the head of the poll for Cork City, but lost his henchman, Mr Maurice Healy. It will be remembered that Mr O'Brien resigned his seat last year after his last quarrel with Mr Redmond, and was. replaced by Mr Maurice Healy. Mr O'Brien and Mr Healy stood again for the two seats in opposition to the two Redmonds and Sir Edward Fitzgerald, an exLord Mayor of Cork, who called hiinself an Independent Nationalist. One of the Redmondites, Mr Augustine Roche, was returned with Mr O'Brien.

Wednesday saw the completion of London, pollings the net result thereof being the return of 33 Unionists against 26 Liberals. This, of course, is a big turnover on the. "Annus MirabihV for Liberalism —1906— when 40 of the metropolitan seats were captured by the party; but the Unionists have failed entirely to *' sweep London," as they did in 1900, when the Liberals only secured 8 scats out of 59. The Unionists, indeed, are not so well off as in 1885. for then they represented 36 London constituencies, and their opponents 23. MR HEATONS NARROW ESCAPE. On Thursday the result of Wednesday's polling in the county divisions came to hand, and gave joy to the.heart of the Tariff Reformers. No less than 13 Liberal seats had been won in the provinces, and the Liberals who managed to retain their seats found their majorities whittled down in alarming fashion. The turnover of votes in some constituencies was tremendous. At Brentford, for example, it was 4,309, and at Tonbridge 4,493. Against the run of Unionist victories the Liberals could not set a single success, and on Thursday night the total number of seats won from them hud reached 71, whilst the total number of scats captured from the Unionists was only 10. Among the members returned yesterday waa Mr Henniker Hcaton, who had sat for Canterbury since 1885. He had a very narrow escape of losing his seat owing to the opposition of Mr Bennett Goldney, who put himself forward as an Independent Unionist, and thus provoked a triangular contest, which might have cost the Unionist the seat had the Liberal candidate been a strong man. As it was, the Unionist had plenty of votes in hand, and though the party was fairly divided, the Liberals did not poll within 500 of cither Unionist candidate. A close contest between Mr Heaton and Mr Goldney resulted in a victory for "the member for Australia " by the narrow margin of 21 votes. ELECTORAL ANOMALIES. One thing the present election must have impressed upon the minds of all dispassionate observers, and that is the crying need of a. new Redistribution Bill. When we find that constituencies like Wandsworth, with over 38,000 voters on the register, has only the same parliamentary influence as constituencies with less than 4,000 voters, it makes one wonder. Yet Wandsworth has only one member, and her 38,000 voters have no more

"say" in the management of the Empire than the 2,021 electors of Newry, Ireland—i.e., one Irish elector has nearly as much voting power in Parliament as nineteen Englishmen resident in ihe Borough of Wandsworth. Similar gross anomalies are to be found on every hand. Lewisham, with over 25,000 voters on the list,, returns only, one member, and has no more power in Parliament than South Kildare (4,958), North Longford (3,623), or North KUkenny (4,847). Cardiff is in an even worse plight, for her 28,723 voters carry no more weight in Parliament than the 5,000 electors of Denbigh, and only half the weight of the 23,000 electors of Mcrthyr Tydvil. Ealing and Hornsey, two Middlesex constituencies with over 25,000 and 23,000 voters rcrpectively, have to be content, with one MP. each, the votes of the electors in these divisions representing only about a. fifth of the value of those of the free and enlightened electors of Elgin, N. 8., and about one-ninth of these of ihe electors of Bury St. Edmunds.

The most striking contrast, however, is afforded by Ihe Romford Division, of Essex and Kilkenny City. In the former constituency there arc over 51,000 electors on the poll, but they arc represented in Parliament by one man, as in Kilkenny City, with a registered electorate of 1,700. Thus, one Irish vote given in Kilkenny has the same influence in Imperial politics as thirty Englishmen's votes registered in the County of Essex. Another injustice to Ireland! Esses and Kilkenny may lie further contrasted. In the various divisions of Essex there are on the electoral rolls no less than 174,000 voters returning 3 members; in Kilkenny there are only 11,700 voters all told, and they return 7> members. The proper proportion for Essex on the Irish bash; would be, about 44 jhembers, or, reversing the process, Kilkenny's portion ou the Essex basis would be a little over half a member. Practically every voter in Kilkenny exercises the same power in Parliament as 15 Essex electors. At the present time England and Wales has only nip member of Parliament for about every 12,000 electors, Scotland one for every 10,500, and Ireland one for every 6,700 el«* iors.