BRITISH POLITICS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 95, 28 April 1910, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

TO THE EDITOB,

Sir, —In your leading article of the 21st inst. you complain of the violence of Tory politicians against the Asquith Ministry; but all I have read on this is mildness itself compared with your own language on your opponents. Your # inveteracy undermines whatever consistency you may possess, so much so as to cause you to give your own case away, as when you say "Mr Asquith's great crime in Tory eyes is that he has been successful in placating the section which unfortunately holds the balance of power." This word "unfortunately" for you puts you out of court, and not all the invective that follows (you use no argument) justifies you in the eyes of honest readers. I have always claimed to be a Liberal. My political education was commenced under the tuition of the Manchester Guardian, long years before the first of your forty-four anniversaries (on this allow me to wish you many prosperous returns of the day). Then the education was continued by the Northern Whig. Both these papers can hold their own for literary merit, and neither has ever sought assistance from Grub Street. When Mr Gladstone disrupted the party I followed John Bright, and I am sure you with all

I your daring will not question his j honesty. I have intruded this per- ! sonal matter on you, as I regret the i great Liberal Party has sunk so low, '■ and been guilty of such unnatural alliances and political bribery unparalleled since the days of Walpole. i Everything held sacred by true Lib- | erals has been surrendered, as witness j what you report in your issue of 20th I inst.—the concessions to ecclesiastical trusts (secret) in Ireland. I have always thought that a true Liberal would make no terms with ecclosiasticism. I think I may ask here, where were the sturdy .Nonconformists" when this surrender was made? In a fix to justify yourself you bring in the worn-out argument that two wrongs make a right by saying "the Unionists would have bargained with the separatists." Now give all their due, please, and you cannot find one instance since Home Rule started under Isaac Butt in the 'sixties, where any of the Unionists from Disraeli to Balfour have in any way compromised their position on this our sreet-auction. Your borrowed nickname "Yes-No" for the Unionist leader is not justified by his history. You have raked up from many j Separatist gutters all you can against ' the Unionists both during the elec- j tion and since; but they have clean j hands to show compared with many on your side. One of your militant clerics impiously described Mr Lloyd- ■ George's abortion as "God's Budget." Then, Sir, if there is one fig- ] lire in history I revere (not Avorship), j it is "Tlie Teacher," and if sacri- | legions hands approach it I cry | "Hands off!" and yet another of these clerics dared to say, "If Jesus '■ were now on earth He avoulcl vote Liberal!" Noav, Sir, can you match this for gutter blasphemy in those you have so much reviled; if you! can I Avill relieve you by troubling you no more? \ M.J. i [It is a great pity that "M.J.," j who informs us that his "political ! education" was commenced under the j tuition of the Manchester Guardian, j has not, apparently,, been reading j that journal with aiiy regularity dur- j ing the past few months. If he had j —and had the old influence of his cherished tutor continued—he would find that no journal in England has supported Mr Asquith and Mr LloydGeorge with greater earnestness and fidelity than that lieAvspaper in ques- j tion. As to the cases he quotes of certain militant clerics having descended to such folly as to talk of the Budget as "God's Budget," or to say "If Jesus Avere iioav on earth He Avould vote Liberal," they could be paralleled a hundred times over by extracts from the speeches of Tory parsons Avho have preached and Avritten (in "parish magazines") the most astounding libel and nonsense against the hated statesman whom a bilious and disgruntled Duke, early in the campaign, sneered at as a "pettifogging, canting little Welsh attorney." For further particulars of such statements and of the abominable combination of corruption and coercion, by Avhich the voters in certain country electorates Avere AA ron over, "M.J." is recommended to consult the columns of the Manchester *Gtiardian, the London Daily NeAvs, the Leeds Mercury, and other leading organs of English Liberalism. Also, "M.J." will be good enough not to misquote and distort A\ rhen he gives alleged extracts from our leading columns. Where, in our article of the 21st, can he find the phrase (placed by him in his letter within quotation marks) "the Unionists would have bargained with the Separatists?" If he -will read the article AA rith a little care he AA'ill find, too, that our reference to Mr Balfour as a "Yes-No" politician Avas based, not upon his attitude toAvards Home Rule, but toAvards tariff reform. The manner in which a large and influential section of the Unionists (Freetraders by conviction) have SAvalloAA red Tariff Reform principles is quite equal to any political somersaults turned during "the days of Walpole" Avhich "M.J." recalls with such pious horror.—Ed.]