IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 13949, 4 January 1906, Page 7

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

THE COMING ELECTIONS. United Press Association—By Electri* Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, January 2. The Liberals will contest every seat except those of th© Universities and a few constituencies in which it is undesirable to oppose Unionist Freetraders. It is expected that ninety Labour candidates will stand. THE HOME RULE QUESTION. LONDON, January 3. Lord James of Hereford, in a letter to th© Free Trad© League, says that the House of Lords rejected Horn® Rule by ton to one, and a Bill would again be decisively rejected unless a vote of th© electorates should be specifically taken, which would not now be the case. He adds: “I fought for the maintenance of the union, and will continue to fight, but protest against the present sham battle cry. It is unfair that we should see the unionist flag high aloft and beneath it the protectionist flag. It is forced on m® that free traders are entitled to say: ‘ Thai® are not our friends. We fight on their side, but the true faith bids us fights against them.’ ” ELECTION ADDRESSES. (Received January 3, 11.57 p.m.) LONDON, January 3. Hr Balfour, in his ©lection address, vindicated the Unionist policy with regard to domestic, foreign and colonial affairs. The new Government were known to the electorates chiefly as critics. Their criticism was sometime* unscrupulous and sometimes perverse. He denounced the programme of Home Rule as destruction and spoliation. He emphasised the difference dividing the confederacy of parties whereon the Cabinet depended. Lord Welby, in an address as president of the Cobden emphasises the dangers of any returni to a system of intricate provocative tariffs. He recommends a sweeping free trade jority lest the protectionist agitation should distract the nation’s counsels for years. Mr Lloyd George, speaking at Carnarvon, said that he had Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s authority to announce that the disestabiishmen/t of th© Church in Wales, advocated since 1888, was still an essential part of his programme. Mr Chamberlain, addressing his constituents, said that more had been don© for social reform during the past decade than in any previous, decade. As regarded the main issues of the election there were two sides to th® Unionist policy. The negative side was resistance to Home Rule. A Liberal -majority would mean a Government wholly Mr Redmond’s. The positive side was fiscal .reform. He advocated a duty on luxuries and imported manufactures, not on raw material. DEMONSTRATION AT BELFAST. THE DUKE OF ABERCORN ON HOME RULE. LONDON, January 3. The Duke of Abercbrn, presiding at a great demonstration at Belfast, said that the Home Rule danger was most imminent. They were determined, com® what might, not to live under the yoke of Home Rule. The Unionists of Ireland were unable, and did not dare, to entrust their liberties to the present Government. The latter might put the enemy in ©very commanding position, undermine ©very defensive work, slacken administrative control, and reduce the country to a condition wherein refusal to the larger policy could be represented as having become tantamount to civil war. Mr Augustine Birrell, speaking at North Bristol, said that there would be no settlement of the education question until every .public elementary school was under complete popular oonr trol. Lord Percy, in an election address, denounces the promise of a stealthy attempt to attain Home Rule. It had been, twice refused when urged by Mr Gladstone’s candour and courage. AIMS OF THE LABOUR PARTY. POSSIBLE REVOLUTION IN ENGLISH POLITICS. In a recent number of an English paper Mr Keir Hardie, M.P., draws a lively picture of th© troubles awaiting a Liberal Government on its accession to office. Sections of the party demand precedence, each for its own pet project —education, disestablishment, temperance, and the rest —while the Irish party remains unreconciled. But th© new factor will be the, Labour party, probably thirty strong, pledged “ to force social and industrial legislation to the front and keep it there.” _ “ The very reason, for its existence is to insist upon the intervention of the State to protect the individual against evils which he finds himself unable to cop© with single-handed. Th© rehabilitation of the law for the protection of trades union funds, the insistence upon the responsibility of the State to put employment within the reach of ©very applicant, the provision of rate provided meals for under-fed school children, the extension of the franchise to women, the use of State funds and credit in acquiring land and erecting suitable dwellings by the public authorities, the care of the aged poor apart from the degrading influence of pauperism, these and kindred questions will form the battle-cries witn which the Labour party will seek to rally the working class electors under its banners. There are, it seems to me, but two, ways of preventing its Succeeding in its object—either that it should be outbid by one or other of the orthodox parties, or that these should combine and support sach other in resisting its. demands. The latter stage is nob likely to be reached in the coming Parliament, and the former is impossible. A much more likely development is that the Socialist Radicals, the Nationalists, and the Labour folk will be driven into other’s arms, and come to same

understanding whereby they will be able to act together as a fighting force. Sooner or later some such development is, as I view the situation, inevitable, and should the next Government turn out to be as impotent as was that of 1892-95, it might come with surprising suddenness, and its coming would be a complete revolution in politics.”