BRITISH ELECTIONS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1775, 14 March 1906, Page 18

BRITISH ELECTIONS.

(From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, January 26. A DIARY 0(P DEFEAT.

The Tory debacle has continued throughout the pollings of the past .Week. The results declared last Friday showed a further loss of seventeen seats to the Unionists, the Liberals gaining fifteen, the Labour party one, and the Nationalists one. A further seven seats •were lost as a result of Friday’s battle, but on Saturday the Unionists gained five unexpected victories. These were in constituencies which had “ ratted ” to Liberalism at by-elections. Against these Unionist gains, however, the Liberals were able to set eighteen seats gained by their including the Dartford division of Kent, where Sir William Hart-Dyke, who has represented the division since 1885, was defeated by a majority of over 2800. Another tremendous defeat was that of Mr Louis Sinclair in the Romford division of Essex. He has sat for this constituency for nine years, and at the last election his majority was over 1000. Since then the district has grown enormously, the electorate now numbering over 45,500. Of these, about 34,500 voted—--21,534 for the Liberal candidate (Mr J. H. Bethell) and 12,679 for Mr Sinclair, who thus suffered what is likely to be the heaviest defeat of the present election, the majority against him being 8855. A disastrous week for tbe Unionists ended with the Liberals in possession of 284 seats, as against the 115 in the hands of the Opposition, the Liberal gain having been 149, or, allowing tor tlio eight Unionist gains recorded and one Labour gain from the Liberals, 140 net> In addition to their losses to the Liberals, the Unionists had lost twentytwo seats to Labour nominees approved by the Labour Representation Committee or by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. _what wo may call. “-official labour candidates to distinguish them from the many “ Liberal and Labour ” candidates who have been elected. The Unionists had also lost one Irish seat to a Nar tionalist, so altogether the party had lost no fewer than 172 seats, and their net 109S —'allowing for their eight victories —was 164. RUBBING IT IN.

Monday saw hostilities in active progress in 23 county divisions, and the first result made known was a Unionist loss at Gorton,. Lancs-, where Mr J. Hod»e, an “official” Labour candidate, defeated the Unionist nominee by no less than 4215 votes. Following rapidly reports of Liberal victories in Inry strongholds like Henley, South-east Essex and New Forest, and the complete returns for the day showed a Liberal gain of eight, whilst the Unionists lost also one seat to Labour. On the morrow 47 constituencies polled, and once more Labour opened the ball with a victory over Unionism, Mr J. Seddon winning the Newton (Lancs.) seat from the late member, Mr R. Pilkington, by 541 votes on a poll of 12,300 odd. Against the Unionists could set off a victory over Liberalism and Labour m North-west Lanark, thanks entirely, however, to a split vote which gave the Unionist a preponderance over the late Liberal member of 675. Had Liberals and Labour voters united forces their joint nominee would have had a very easy triumph indeed. For the rest the Unionists fared badly, and on Wednesday also. In-thirteen of the 46 Constituencies the polls of which were declared before midnight on that day the Liberals were successful in reversing the decision of the last general election, in most cases by a substantial majority. The Labour party won a Unionist seat in Wales, and against these reverses tlie Conservatives were only able to place the consolation of winning back the North Lonsdale division of Lancashire, whose late representative joined the Liberals in the last Parliament. Yesterday’s returns were again calculated to make the Unionists “squirm.” /There were twelve seats won for the Ministry, and out of twenty-three contests only a paltry three Unionists emerged successful, and in' one case the majority in favour of the Balfourite member was ordy thirty 1 . , . . , The state of the parties at midnight yesterday was that, out of 610 members elected 358 were Liberals, 30 were of the “official” Labour brand, the Nationalists numbered Bi> •• and the Unionists 141. It is reckoned at the time of writing that the Liberals have a clear majority of 60—a comfortable working margin—over Unionists, Labour, men and . Nationalists ‘ combined. The “triple alliance,” as represented by the Liberal: Labour, and Nationalist members, snows a majority of 320 over the Unionists. The Liberal majority will certainly not be decreased as a result of the elections still to take! place; indeed, it seems probable that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman will commence business at the “Babble Shop” next Monday fortnight-with a clear majority of nearly 80 over all the forv.es that can be arrayed against: him. Of course, many of the members returned as Liberals are in reality Labour men thinly disguised, but even their defection would leave the Liberal chief with a small maiority over the full

strength of Unionists, Labour, and Nationalists.

THE LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY.

The new Labour party in the Imperial Parliament now numbers well over fifty members, and the influence of this new force in British politics has become one of the burning quest ions of the moment. The Labour members have not all been elected on the same ticket, hut the majority of them have endorsed and will support the general programme drawn up by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. Arranged in order of importance, the planks in their common platform are:—The Trades Disputes Bill, to reinstate the legal rights of trades unions, and upset the Taff Vale decision; amendment of the Compensation Act, amendment of the Truck Act, amendment of the Factory Act, amendment of the Unemployed Act, abolition of Chinese labour in South Africa, a State pensions fund at sixty years of age, extension of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, an eight-hour working day, adult suffrage, and, generally, the maintenance of free trade, amendment of the Education Act, popular control of the liquor trade, extension of municipal trading, and the nationalisation of means of transit and natural resources in the Kingdom. Labour owes its triumph at the polls to the famous Taff Vale railway decision. The agitation to reintroduce the Trade Disputes Bill, and restore trades unions to the position they held before the Taff Vale decision, has won more votes for Labour than any other issue. The secretary of the Trade Union Congress Parliamentary Committee is reported as saying that the whole of the Labour party had pinned its chances on that bill. The Liberal Government, he added, cannot afford to ignore such an outspoken decision as that given by the electors, and must reintroduce the bill, which suffered short shrift in the last Parliament. The Labour party are also united in demanding improvements in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and on the question of housing reform. They want the Unemployed Act amended “so that employment can be found, at trade union rates, for those unable to find work.” An old-ag© pension of at least five shillings a week, to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, is another popular demand. There are differences of opinion within the party regarding the eight-hours day, and also adult suffrage, some of the trades unionists being against the female franchise. The Labour Representation Committee delegates demand, inter alia, better housing for the working cliisses, less taxation, free meals for school-children, amendments of the Poor Law, and municipalisation of the drink traffic. The Social Democrats advocate Home Rule, free trade, and nationalisation of resources. The Labour party means business, and any lack of sympathy on the part of the new Government will mean trouble in the Liberal camp. What the “Saturday Review” describes as “John Bums multiplied by at least thirty-four (54?) with over three hundred and seventytwo thousand of extremists in the constituencies,” is bound to exercise a very potent influence at Westminster.