IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 40

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THREE CANDIDATES UNOPPOSED. LONDON, January 10. There will be no election contests for West Birmingham (Mr J. Chamberlain’s seat), nor for Durham City (held by Mr J. W. Hills, Conservative), nor for one of th© Cumberland seats. In 54 constituencies there will be threecornered contests. Sir Hugh Bell (ironmaster) stands for the City of London (represented 'by Mr Balfour and Sir F. G. Banbury, Conservatives) on behalf of the Liberals. Replying to a widely-repeated statement that Mr Joseph Chamberlain is incapable of writing a single word and is practically imbecile, and that bis son Austen wrote the letters appearing in his father’s name, Mr Austen Chamberlain states that he will not comment on so cruel and indecent a lie, but will contradict it publicly. Sir E. Carson, M.P., has also denied similar inventions. TARIFF REFORM. LONDON, January 10. Writing to Sir Henry Norman, Mr Winston Churchill (President if the Board of Trade) says that both the German- and American, tariffs had conspicuously failed to prevent unemployment. Although the German worker was willing to cat horseflesh and black bread, he was hopelessly inferior to his British comrade as a producer ; and although th© Americans bad a vast virgin continent there were greater instability of trade, more unemployment, and more bankruptcy than in Great Britain. January 11. Speaking to his constituents at Bristol, Mr Augustine Birrell described an Empire tariff reform scheme with preferential treatment to the colonies as sheer madness. It would be rank folly to abandon their present fiscal policy, which had made tire country so prosperous. He favoured the disestablishment and disendowment of the English Church. BERLIN, January 10. The Friedrich Bayer Company at Elberfeld, with a capital of 36 million marks (about £1,800,000). has arranged to open chemical works capable of supplying the British demand if tariff reform is introduced. The Bayers Company already manufactures patented articles in England, consequent upon the British Patents Act. MINISTERIAL SPEECHES. LONDON, January 11. Mr Lloyd-George, addressing 4590 people at Falmouth, stated that the Opposition said, “ Let us treat with our colonies.” He replied, “Why with th© colonies alone?” Tradesmen did not put notices outside their shops that they traded only with their relatives. If th© colonies wanted assistance Britain was bound to help them, and they were bound to help her to the last drop of their blood; but business was business. The Canadians did not pay more because goods came from Britain. They would be fools if they did. It would be folly and unworthy of a business nation for Britain to risk 251 millions’ worth of foreign trade on the off chance of securing 30 millions more of colonial trade. Mr Lloyd-George denied the accuracy of the reports of his hostile reception on Saturday, and declared that the torchlight procession was abandoned owing to tb.e risk to his health through -driving in the night air. January 11. Mr Asquith, in an address to the electors of East Fife, states that the House of Lords has violated the Constitution in order to save tariff reform from a mortal blow. Th© fortunes of both Ftcctrade and popular government are now at stake. The possession of an unlimited veto by the partisan Second Chamber is an insuperable obstacle to democratic legislation. Th© address does not mention Home Rule, and only makes incidental reference to the navy in explaining the clauses of the heavy .increase in the Budget. The new Parliament will meet on February 15. SPEECH BY MR BALFOUR. LONDON, January 11. Speaking at Aberdeen. Mr Balfour said that the number of landlords ought to be greatly increased. Small holdings, however, could not- prosper without the stimulus of ownership. Referring to tariff reform, he declared that the producer must be considered more than the consumer. Although money invested abroad was not wasted, Great Britain benefited far more bv production due to British capital employing British labour. CANDIDATE FIRED AT. LONDON, January 11. While motoring near Cardiff Mr Malley 'Samson,; the Unionist candidate, was shot at, the bullet penetrating th© wind screen and whizzing - past his head. Mr Haise, the Liberal candidate, is hurrying home from Afghanistan in order to fight Bristol West. At Woolwich an active campaign V> being made on behalf of Mr Will Crock*, (Pending- his arrival from Australia.

COLONIAL PREFERENCE. LONDON, January 12. Mr Lyttelton, speaking at Wolverhampton, said that. Australia’s business with Britain amounted to' £7 5s per head annually, as compared with 13s 3d for the United States and'"ss 9d for. Germany. The last-named, with a population of. 60,000,000, did business to . the extent of 29 millions, while Australasia, with a population equal to that of London, did business to the extent of 20 millions. The sole obstacle to the closer knitting of the Empire’s commercial bonds was the belief that colonial preference involved taxation. He was fully prepared to admit that in order to get effective preference there should be a low duty, not upon colonial wheat, but on foreign wheat. The fear that this would increase the price was groundless. What determined the price of bread was a. sufficient supply of home and colonial wheat and sufficient competition to keep down the price. The growing areas in Canada alone w'ere sufficient to supply the consumption of the whole world, and, in addition, Britain had reserves in India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Further, he believed that the United States would pay revenue to a substantial sum in order to have the privilege of continuing to supply portion of the British market. REPLY TO MR BALFOUR. LONDON, January 12. In a speech at Ipswich Mr Asquith replied to Mr Balfour’s Aberdeen speech. He said it was vital to maintain a perfectly open market whereby Britain would be better able to overleap the tariff barriers than by the countries adopting retaliation. The enormous industrial advance in Germany was not due to tariffs, but to education and organisation. FORECAST OF RESULTS. LONDON, January 12. The Times, summarising every constituency, forecasts 134 Unionist gains, three Liberal gains, and 88 seats as. doubtful. It adds that the Unionists will probably gain 17 seats in. London. TARIFF QUESTION. LONDON, January 12. Speaking at Glasgow, Mr Balfour said that a system of treaties under their present fiscal regulations always told against Great Britain. Though every treaty nominally gave them equal rights, matters were so managed that the goods Britain was specially qualified to produce were subjected to heavier duties. Unless, therefore, the British Foreign Minister had tire same weapons of negotiation which others possessed it was folly to expect that they would receive justice from the European Chancellories. The country was beginning to realise how much it was gaining by the Imperial preference extended by the sister States of the Empire, which were more farsighted than itself. Tanuary 13. Mr Balfour, in a speech at York, said he favoured broadening the basis of taxation and thereby getting the money necessary for the State with far less friction. A small duty on, corn, with preference to the colonies, would diminish rather than increase the cost of bread. Continuing, he said: “Taxation on the necessities of life shall not be proportionately increased. To that I pledge myself. Wheaten bread, tea, and tobacco are necessities because they belong to the standard comforts upon which our people rightly Insist. It is futile to talk of a cheap or dear loaf without seeing that the trade routes whereby the food comes are guarded by an invincible fleet. The Government has admitted facts which have condemned them as naval administrators.” Speaking at Wolverhampton, Mr LloydGeorge said the Tories were trying to prove that- black bread .and horseflesh were very wholesome food, but, personally, though not afraid of the German navy and of German trade competition, he was afraid of German sausages. Referring to a. hereditary Second Chamber, the Chancellor said that the Peers required no certificate to prove them sound in body and mind, but only a certificate of birth to prove that they were the first of the litter. “ You do not choose a spaniel on this principle. Why, then, should 500 Peers be so chosen to override the choice of 45,000,000?” In connection with the election campaign, working men are frequently warned of the prospect of eating black bread and horse sausages in the event of tariff reform being carried. It is shown, however, that the Kaiser has black bread in every palace and on every royal yacht. The Radical newspapers are publishingthe price-list of horseflesh in Germany. Speaking at Dulwich. Mr H. Bonar Law declared that no one proposed protective taxation on foodstuffs. It was true that Mr Chamberlain had mentioned 2s a quarter as a. probable duty on wheat. Speaking at Ealing, Lord George Hamilton said that the Government had destroyed the Freetrade system, and so mismanaged national finance bv-remitting taxation and piling up expenditure without the means of meeting it that the old Freetrade system was impossible. INDEPENDENCE NEEDED. LONDON. January 12. In the course of a letter from Lord

Rosebery wishing -success to Mr Harold Cox (the Independent candidate for Preston), his Lordship says that there is no place where independence is more needed and more rare than in the House of Commons. “Independence,” he writes, “ seems to me the most crying political need of the hour.” - AN APOLOGY. LONDON, January 12. Lord Rothschild has apologised to Mr Lloy-d-Geo-rge for misquoting his speech about a- prospective expulsion of the Jews if the Unionists are returned to power. “SOCIALISM OF THE BUDGET.” LONDON, January 13. Sir R. Giffin, the eminent statistician, objects to the Socialism of the Budget, and considers that the Liberal Government has sacrificed the cause of Freetrade. HOME RULE. LONDON, January 13. Speaking at a large meeting, Sir Hugh Bell, the Liberal candidate for the City of London, declared that he would not support any measure for a separate Parliament in Ireland. NONCONFORMISTS’ DIFFICULTY. LONDON, January 14. An active newspaper corresp on deuce is proceeding between the leading Nonconformist ministers, showing their difficulty in voting for either side. Several .of them are utterly disappointed with the Government’s neglect of the Nonconformist demands, and are also strongly opposed to Home Rule. The Rev. J. J. Greenhough champions the cause of the Lords, and declares that Socialism is the supreme peril. He protests against the degradation of the Nonconformist sanctuaries by passionate party appeals. MR ASQUITH’S REPLY TO MR BALFOUR. LONDON, January 14. Mr Asquith, at Bradford, referring to Mr Balfour’s speech at York, said:— “ The oracle has spoken. Not Delphi nor Dodona, in the palmiest days of sacerdotal ambiguity, gave forth a more uncertain sound. Mr Balfour states that he must prefer to tax the luxuries of the rich. I ask. Why luxuries? Is he going to remit the duties on tea and sugar, as Mr Chamberlain promised ? I don’t envy the Chancellor who has to meet the cost of old-age pensions, the navy, and the ever-increasing demands of social reform out of the odds and ends which he may be able to accumulate under this precious system of taxing imported luxuries. If revenue, is to be secured, how will a tariff end unemployment ? After the York \speeeh the. Opposition is definitely committed to a moderate duty upon food.” Mr Asquith continued : —“ Mr Balfour has the courage to predict that his scheme will, diminish rather than increase the price of food, because it will bring vast untouched areas of fertile wheat lands into cultivation. But- how long will this take? What are we going to do in the meantime? It is a- vital- necessity that Britain should have the whole world to draw from. The- vicissitudes of climate and crops may cause a breakdown in a usually dependable source of supply. We want to correct the shortage in one part by supplies from another.” UNCONTESTED SEATS. LONDON, January 14. The first election return received was that of Mr Joseph Chamberlain for West Birmingham, who was returned unopposed. [Mr Chamberlain first entered Parliament in 1876 as the member for Birmingham, and represented that constituency till 1885. In the latter year he was returned for Birmingham West by a majority of 2764 votes, and he has represented the electorate ever since. On two occasions he was elected unopposed, and his smallest majority in a contested election has been over 4000 votes. In 1806 he defeated Mr R. L. Out.hwaite by 7173 votes to 2094.] January 15. The following have also been returned unopposed— Durham City —Mr John Waller Hills (Unionist and Tariff Reformer). [ln 1906 Mr Hills defeated the Hon. A. Elliot (L.U.). the sitting member, by 1313 votes to 880.] Bury St. Edmonds—The Hon. Walter Guinness (U.) [ln 1996 Captain Hervey was returned by a majority of 434 votes, but he succeeded to the peerage the- following year, and at the bye-election in 1907 the Hon, W. Guinness defeated Mr W. Yates (L.) by 1631 votes to 741] Cambridge University—Mr Samuel Henry Butcher (U.) and Mr John F. P. Rawlinson (U.). [1906. —-Mr Batcher, 3050 votes; Mr Eawlineon. 2976; Sir John Gorst, 1653. This seat has been held by the opponents of the present Government for more than 20 years.] Oxford University—Sir William R. Anson (U.) and Lord Hugh Cecil (U.). [ln 1900 and 1906 Mr J. G. Talbot and, Sir W. R. Anson were returned unopposed.] Dublin University—Sir Edward Carson. (U.) and Mr James H. M. Campbell (U.). [Sir E. Carson has represented Dublin University since 1892, and Mr Campbell since _ 1903. Both were, returned! without 7 opposition at the last election.] ' MR CHAMBERLAIN’S APPEAL. LONDON, January 14. ~. Mr Joseph Chamberlain has issued a

Stirring appeal to the largely 'consisting of extracts from his tariff reform campaign speeches'. Ho declares: The country is on. the eve of the most critical election of modern times. Other nations are proceeding more rapidly in their progress and prosperity than we are. What is called Freetrade is not fair competition. It is desirable to arrange our taxation so that it shall stimulate trade instead of hindering it. The policy which will unite the Empire is one that will most likely conduce to Great Britain’s internal prosperity, thus drawing closer the sister States, and by commercial union pave the way for a federation of free nations, and so prolong the glorious traditions of the British race.” Mr Chamberlain and Mr Balfour, in a joint manifesto, state that tariff reform will not increase the cost of living to the working classes, nor the proportion of taxes paid by them, but will enable the Government to reduce the present taxes on the articles of working class consumption. It will mean lesser unemployment, and the development of trade with the British dominions beyond the seas. A VETERAN ENTHUSIAST. LONDDN, January 14. Mr Jesse Codings, who is in his eightieth year, and still unable to stand, unexpectedly drove to Bordesley, and from his carriage addressed the electors on tariff reform. He had an. enthusiastic reception. DENMONSTRATTON AGAINST FREETRADE. LONDON, January 15. Two thousand unemployed were engaged as sandwichmen at Manchester for the purposes of a Conservative demonstration against Freetrade. The procession was two miles long. REFORM OF THE LORDS. LONDON, January 15. Newspaper and other comments refer to the absence of a detailed explanation as to the Government’s method of abolishing the Lords’ veto. Beyond the statement by some speakers that the Lords must pass the Commons’ measures within the lifetime of any Parliament no indication has been given as to how ; t 's suggested that the purpose shall be accomplished by legislative action. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. LONDON, January 15. In the course of a speech at Cambridge Mr Lyttelton said that in 1906 there were 203 private bills authorising construction works of a value of between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000, while last year there were only 112 bilk authorising works valued at £12,000,000. The decrease was attributable to the confidence in Britain being shaken in consequence of the Liberal policy, and there was no more striking evidence of the loss which the working classes had sustained. OLD-AGE PENSIONERS SAFE. • LONDON, January 15. Lord Lansdowne, in reply to a correspondent, emphasises that old-age pensioners are safe. He adds that even the Liberal Government has never contended that it should be beyond the power of any future Government to modify the conditions under which pensions were granted. RECONCILIATIONS EFFECTED. LONDON, January 15. Reconciliations avoided Conservative splits at Canterbury, Lincoln, Rossendale, and East Marylebone. INTEREST IN THE ELECTIONS. LONDON, January 15. Cablegrams show that intense interest is being taken in South Africa and Canada, and especially in Germany, in the election results. There is more concern outside England respecting the navy, tariff reforms, and Socialistic Liberalism than there is in the question of the House of Lords. ADVICE TO GERMANY. BERLIN, January 15. Hsrr Handen, a well-known writer in the Zukunft, tells the Germans that Mr Balfour is no agitator, that he simply warns his countrymen not to depend on tire goodwill or bad temper of any other’ Power, and that they must pay higher rates of insurance for their safety. The writer adds that every Chancellor holds that an Anglo-German war is probable. There are people in Germany who,declare that tire Customs tariff is closing the British Empire to German goods, and that it will have to be pierced by the German sword. „ ; NAVAL POLICY DEFENDED. LONDON, January 17. In the course of a speech at Crieff, Mr Asquith declared that the outcry about the Navy had completely failed. The Government, recognising the new conditions whereunder naval administration had now to be carried on/ took prompt and effective measures to make Britain’s} navalpower complete and unassailable. , •» .After dwelling upon the. issues of the election Mr Asquith concluded by urging the electorate to assert for tha peopled representatives the sole right to determine taxation, direct policy, and mould the laws of the Kingdom.

■MR- CHURCHILL ON TARIFF REFORM. LONDON, January 17. Mr Churchill, speaking at Dundee, said that the whole tariff reform movement was promoted by privileged classes to secure what they now possessed, and to carry warfare-against the rights and interests of the common people. MR BALFOUR’S VIEWS. LONDON, January 17. In a speech at Bradford Mr Balfour said that the Germans were not offended at any country for arming for emergencies, but they were insulted by amazing and offensive pictures of wretched artisans, -with all their education and technical knowledge, compelled to eat black bread and horseflesh of every kind —a diet which, a . civilised man would reject with disgust.. Referring to the policy of preference, Mr Balfour remarked that the Government bad turned a deaf ear to the pleadings of the Dominions, but he trusted that Britain would not for long turn an unheeding ear. Mr- Balfour added: —“The whole method of' framing tariffs adopted by our rivals is such as to compel the colonies, unless we. alter our policy, .to come to some arrangement with those with whom they are doing business. Put yourself in the position of a great colony which for years has given the Motherland preference and which is threatened by its great commercial neighbours with a penal tariff unless it throws.in its commercial lot with some State outside the Empire, while the Motherland refuses to come to any arrangement. That cannot last, and if it cannot, in heaven’s name put an end to it at once, because the evil is growing.” Mr Balfour, continuing, emphasised the fact that foreign tariffs were so framed as to divert British industry from the skilled employments into giving the bestwages for the production of semi-manu-factured raw material for the foreigners’ finished products. He instanced the fact that the most skilful and highly paid remunerative kinds of industry at Bradford had been diverted to foreign countries. “Why,” he asked, “should we continue to be patient and tolerant, trusting to the freedom of our rivals to manage our trade?” What, was wanted was a diplomatic weapon,, enabling the Motherland and Dominions to meet other nations on equal terms. “TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.” LONDON, January 16. Speaking at Bradford, Mr Balfour said it was perfectly plain that there were two schools of thought iu the Cabinet. One looked forward with deep alarm to the growth of a i’iva.l naval power, while the other talked of frittering away public money on the Navy. He added ; —“ Ido not know which would win if the Budget provided ample funds, but when we are faced with a deficit, as I believe is certain, the school which regards naval expenditure as a frittering away of public money will finally dominate the policy of the Cabinet. THE CHANCELLOR AT GRIMSBY. LONDON, January 16. The local Unionists .strongly resented Mr Lloyd-George speaking at Grimsby during the polling. A hostile crowd surrounded the hall, and booed and uttered cries of “Traitor” and “pro-Boer.” The police assisted Mr Lloyd-George to escape along the railway line to the first station, whence he motored to Louth. ALLEGED LIBEL. LONDON, January 16. Mr Foster Fraser and Mr Bagley (the Unionist working man), the candidates for the two Leicester seats, have issued writs against Mr J. Ramsay Macdonald for islanderously alleging that they had bribed the electors with drink. THE SUFFRAGISTS BUSY. LONDON, January 16. During a political meeting at Louth on Saturday evening the suffragettes, who bad secreted themselves between the ceiling and roof, compelled Mr Lloyd-George to oease speaking while they were ejected. Speaking at Dundee, Mr Churchill incidentally stated that Mr Herbert Gladstone bad tried the prison method of forcible feeding with a whole meal in order to jper-so-nally test the suffragette grievance. He found so little inconvenience from the process that those under the treatment ;were able to talk thoughout the operation. The suffragettes were active in all the constituencies. They stood outside the ...booths, and urged every elector to keep the the Liberals out, or to write across the troting paper “Votes for women.” ' THE CHANCELLOR AND THE ? 1 SUFFRAGETTES. LONDON, January 17. Mi’ Lloyd-George, who was speaking at •Louth, greeted the suffragettes with the following statement: —“I see rats on the jroof; let them squeal.” 'AWAITING RESULTS. Crowds numbering twenty to thirty thousand people gathered outside the j aiewspaper offices in Fleet street, in Trat falgar square, and in Aldwych avenue tp (Watch the election results, which were shown by means of lantern .screens. The periods of waiting were enlivened by political songs upon gramophones.

FIRST RESULTS NO CRITERION. LONDON, January 16. Speaking at Louth, Mr Lloyd-George said that the first results of the election were no indication of the form Parliament would ultimately take. The winning of an election did not mean holding every seat. KEEN INTEREST IN SOUTH AFRICA. CAPETOWN, January 16. Owing to the intense interest over the British elections, the South African newspapers published Sunday editions. CONTESTED SEATS. SMALL LIBERAL MAJORITY. LQXDON, January 16. The following results of contested elections have come to hand : North Lambeth—Gastrell (Unionist), 2407; Myer (Liberal), 2397. 1906.—H. Myer, 2162; Major Gastrell, 1904. Cambridge—Page (Unionist), 4667; Buckmaster (Liberal), 4081. This seat, which had been represented by Sir R. U. P. Fitzgerald from 1835, was wrested from the Conservatives in 1906, when-Mr S. O. Buckmaster defeated Mr A. H. Pago by 4252 votes to 3924. Penrhyjn and Falmouth —Goldman (Unionist), 1593; Barker (Liberal), 1412. 1906. —J. Barker (L.), 1345; D. B. Hall (U.), 1248. At the two previous elections there were close contests for this seat, ending each time in a Liberal win. Brixton —Dalziel (Unionist), 5465; Seaverns (Liberal), 4427. 1906. — Seaverns, 4521; Dalziel, 4235. Gloucester —Terrell (Unionist), 4109; Rea (Liberal), 3983. 1906.—11 ea, 3921; Terrell, 3619. West Wolverhampton —Bird (LTnionist), 6382; Richards (Labour), 5790. 1906.—Richards, 5756; Sir A. Hickman (U.), 5585. South Wolverhampton—Colonel Hickman (Unionist), 4989; Norman (Liberal), 4619. 1906.—Norman, 4823; Major Villiers (L.U.), 4137. Wednesbury—Griffiths (Unionist), 6637 ; Hyde (Liberal), 6040. 1906. —Hyde, 6150; Bird (U.), 5206. Fulham —W. Hayes Fisher (Unionist), 9690; Hemphir, 7761. 1906.—T. Davies (L.), 8037; W. Hayes Fisher (U.), 7407. Mr Fisher had previously represented this seat for many years. Great Grimsby—Wing (Liberal), 7672; Sir G. Doughty (Unionist), 7450. 1906. —Sir G. Doughty (U.), 6349; H. 11. Ilaldinstein (L.), 4040; T. Proctor (Lab.), 2248. Sir G. Doughty represented this constituency since 1895, winning it in the first instance as a Liberal.- He loft the Liberals in 1898. .. Darlinigton—Lincoln (Liberal), 4815; H. Pike Pease (Unionist), 4786. From 1835 till 1895 Darlington was represented by Mr T. Fry (L.). In the latter year Mr A. Pease (L.U.) was returned, and on his death, in 3898, Mr H. Pike Pease (L.U.) became the member. In 1906 Mr Pease defeated Mr I. H. Mitchell (Lab.) by 4375 votes to 4087. North - West Manchester Kimp (Liberal), 5930; Joynson-Hicks (Unionist), 5147. 3906.—Winston Churchill (L.), 5639; W. Joynson-Hicks (U ), 4398. 1908 (bye-elec-tion on Mr Churchill joining the Cabinet). —W. Joynson-Hicks (U.), 5417; W. Churchill (L.) ; 4988; Dan Irving (Soc.), 276. Lynn Regis —T. Gibson Bowles (Liberal), 1900; Cadagon (Unionist), 1658. 1906. —Lieut. Bellairs (L.), 1506; T. Gibson Bowles, 1164; A. H. Burgoyne (U), 772. West Salford —Agnew (Liberal), 6216; Carlyon Bellairs (Unionist), 5258; Purcell (Labour), 2396. 1906.—G. W. Agnew (L.), 7329; Sir Lees Knowles (U.), 5119. Stafford—Sir C. E. Shaw (Liberal), 2042; Mortimer, 1957. 1906.—Sir C. E. Shaw (L.), 1947; S. R. C. Bosinquet (U.), 1636. Sir C. E. Shaw held this seat since 1892. Dover —Wvndham (Unionist), 2330; Bradley, 1582. 1906. —G. Wyndham (U.), 5269; R. J. Bryce (L.), 1705. A safe Conservative seat for many years. Winchester—Hon. G. V. Baring (Unionist), 1729; Ricketts, 1268. 1906.—1i0n. G. V. Baring, 1332; C. A. M‘Curdy (L.), 1272. Halifax —Whitley (Liberal), 9504 ; Parker (Labour), 9095; Galbraith (Unionist), 4754. 1906. —Whitley. 9354 ; Parker, 8937; Sir S. Crossley, 5041. Hastings—Du Cros (Unionist), 4634 ; Tweedie Smith (Liberal), 3833. 1806.—W. H. Du Cros, 4348; F. FreemanThomas. 3935; bye-election, 1908 —A. Du Oros, 4495; R. Y. Harcourt (L.), 3477. Bury —Toulrain (Liberal), 5866 ; Hartley, 4258. Since May, 1902, Mr G. Toulmin has been the member. In 1906 Mr Toulmin defeated Mr R. J. Lucas (0.) by 4626 votes to 3499. Ashton Under Lyme—Scott (Liberal), 4039 ; Whitley (Unionist), 3746; Gee (Socialist), 413. A long list of Conservative successes was broken at the last election, when Mr A. H. Soott defeated the sitting member, Mr Whitley, by 968 votes, the figures being 4310 arid 3342 respectively. Morpeth —Burt (Labour), 5874; Ridley (Unionist), 3009. 1906. —.Thomas Burt ff,.). 5518; S. A. Coats (U). 1919. Mir Burt has sail- for Morpeth sino© 1874.

West. Newington—Captain Cecil Norton (Liberal), 4350; Brookes, 3938. Captain Norton has represented this constituency since 1892. in 1906 he defeated Mr R. E. Belilios (U.) by 4446 votes to 2425. Hartlepool—-Sir C. Furness (Liberal), 6531 ; Gritten, 5754. In 1906 Sir C. Furness was elected unopposed. Except from 1892 till 1895 he has represented the decorate since 1891. Norwood Division of Lambeth —Sir H. Samuel (Unionist), 6958 ; Sir A. Lawrence, 5180. 1905. G. S. Bowles (U.), 5567; N. W. Hubbard (L.), 4748. Plymouth (two members) Mallet (Liberal), 8091; Williams (Liberal), 7961; Waldorf Astor (Unionist), 7650 ; Sir Mortimer Durand (Unionist), 7556. 1906. T. W. Dobson (L.), 9021 : C. E. Mallet (L.), 8914; H. E. Duke (U.), 6547; H. G. Smith (U.), 6234. Before this Plymouth was generally Conservative in its politics. Lincoln—C. H. Roberts (Liberal), 5408; Filmer (Unionist), 3236; C. H. Seely (Unionist Freetrader), 2129. Birmingham East—Maitland (Unionist), 7460; Stephenson (Labour), 3958. Birmingham, Edgbaston —Sir P. W. Lowe (Unionist), 7951; Morgan, 2350. Birmingham Central —E. Parkes (Unionist), 6015 ; Brampton, 1711. Birmingham North —J. T. Middlemore (Unionist), 5189 ; Dawson, 988. Birmingham, Borcksley—Jesse Codings (Unionist), 6207; Hughes (Labour), 3453. Birmingham South —Viscount Morpeth (Unionist), 6207 ; Butler, 2476. Derby (two members) —Sir T. Roe (Liberal), 10,343; Thomas (Labour), 10,189 : Beck, 8038; Page, 7955. Scarborough—W. Russell Rea (Liberal), 3011 ; Arundell, 2719. Manchester East Sutton (labour), 6110; Robb, 5091. Manchester South—A. A. jaaworth (Liberal), 9121 ; Jackson, 5699. Manchester North-east —J. R. dynes (Labour), 5157; Yaudrey, 3679. Manchester North—Sir C. E. Schwann (Liberal), 5216; Howell, 3951. Salford North—W. P. Byles (Liberal), 4980 ; lan Malcolm, 4123. Rochdale —Harvey (Liberal), 6809; Boyd Carpenter (Unionist), 5381; Irving (Socialist), 1755. Gravesend Sir G. Parker (Unionist). 3286 ; enkins, 2612. Oxford —Viscount Yakutia (Unionist), 4918; Whale, 3707. Kennington Division of Lambeth—Collins (Liberal), 4246; Lucas, 5865. Newington (Walworth Division) — Dawes (Liberal), 5509; Belilios, 3319. West Islington —Lough (Liberal), 3768 ; Crossley, 3514. Southampton (two members) —Phillips (Liberal), 8878; Ward (Liberal), 8830; Balfour (Unionist), 7874; Giles (Unionist), 7841. Hampstead—Fletcher (Unionist), 6228; Howard, 3949. East Wolverhampton—Thorne (Liberal), 5276; Amery, 4462. North Islington—Watterlow (Liberal), 5543; Touche, 5512. East Islington—Radford (Liberal), 5003; Reeves, 4674. South Islington—Wiles (Liberal), 3918; Faber (Unionist), 3187. Bolton (two members) Harwood (Liberal), 12,275; Gill (Labour), 11,864; Mattison, 7479; Ashworth, 7326. Reading—lsaacs (Liberal), 6264; Renton, 5047. Aston Manor—E. Cecil (Unionist), 7369; Allen, 1922. The following have been elected unopposed ; Penrith —Lowther. Kilkenny—Patrick O'Brien. Galway—Gwynn. Sedgefleld Division of Durham —Wilson. St. Patrick’s Division of Dublin—Field. D übl inHar bo u r—H ar ringto n. East Belfast —Wolff. Dublin North—Clancy. January 16. The following additional results are announced: Devonport (two members). —Sir J. Jackson (U.), 5658; Kinloch-Cooke (U.), 5286 ; Sir J. W. Benn (Liberal), 5046; Lithgow (L.), 5140. [1906.—H. E. Kearley (L.), 6923; J. W. Be,an (L.), 6527; Sir J. Jackson (UJ, 5239; F. Holtne-Sumner (U.), 5080.] Bath (two members).—Lord A. Thynne (U.), 3961 ; Sir C. Hunter (U.), 3889; Mac Lean (L.), 3771; Gooch (L.), 3707. [From 1686 till 1906 this electorate was represented by the Unionists, but in the latter year the Liberals secured a victory,' both their candidates being returned- The voting was as follows: —Mr D. Maclean (L.l, 4012: Mr G. P. Gooch (L.), 4069; Lord A. Thynne (U.), 3123; Colonel Sir Wyirdbam Murray (one of the retiring' members), 3088.] Rochester. —Ridley (Unionist), 2675; Lamb (Liberal), 2543. [1906.—E. H. Lamb (L.), 2967; C. Tuff (U.), 2374.] Salisbury.—Locker-Lamson (Unionist), 1803 ; Sir E. P. Tennant (Liberal), 1485. [1906. —E. P. Tennant (L.), 1646; Sir W. Palmer (U.), 1605.] Stalybridge.—Wood (Unionist), 5736; Bright (L.), 3679. [1906. —J. F. Cheetbam (L.), 3836; J. T. Travis-Clegg (U.), 3382.] Burnley.—Arbuthnot (Unionist), 5776; Maddison (Labour), 5680; Hyndman (Socialist), 4948. [At the last election Mr E. P. Maddi6on (L.) secured a viotpry over Mr G. A. Arbuthnot (U.) by 5288 votes to 4964, Mr IT. M. Hyndman coming' third with 4932.] Manchester South-west.—Oolifax (Unionist), 3111; Needham (Liberal), 3004; MacLachJan (Labour), 1218, (1906—G. D. Kelley (Lab.), 4101; W. J. Galloway (U)., 2875.]

• Stoke - upon - Trent.—Ward (Labour), 7788 ; Kyd (Unionist), 5697. [1906.—J. Ward (Lab., 7660; D. H. Coghill (UJ, 4288.] Ipswich (two seats).—Sir D. F. Goddard (Liberal), 6120; Rev. Sylvester Horne (Liberal), 5958; Churchman (U.), 5690; Burton (Unionist), 5645. [1906. —Goddard. 6396; F. T. Cobboltl (L.). 6290; Sir C. Dalrymple (U.), 4591; S. J. G. Hoare (U.), 4232] Dudley.-x-A. G. Hooper (Liberal), 8342; Boscowen (Unionist), 8155. [1906.—A. G. Hooper, 8296; G. IT. C laugh ton (XJ. ), 7542. This had been a Conservative seat since 1886. | SATURDAY’S ELECTIONS. LONDON, January 17. Both the Liberals and the Unionists express elation at the results of Saturday’s pollings. A NEW ZEALAND VIEW. (From Our Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, January 10. Mr George Gould, who returned on Saturday from a visit to England, was seen by a representative of the Press, to whom he spoke of some of the impressions he formed of the trend of public affairs in Great Britain. The trip Mr Gould has returned from is the tenth he has taken, and he has no hesitation in saying that the return passage in the New Zealand Company’s new steamer Ruahine is the most comfortable one he has experienced. Referring to the present political crisis in England, Mr Gould said that personally he questioned the wisdom of the action of the House of Lords in throwing out the Budget. There was, however, a good deal to be said on both sides of a .the question, and, of course, the, issues raised by the Budget had nob been previously before the country. If the House of Lords had allowed it to pass, and if the Liberals had remained in power for a few months, he thought that they then would have suffered from the unpopularity of their own measures when put into practice. For instance, at present the additional duties on tobacco and whisky were very unpopular with the working claisses. As things were just now, the general opinion at Home appeared to be that it was doubtful whether, as the result of the general election, the Conservatives would be returned with a working majority. In order to meet the heavy demands on the exchequer for old-age pensions and for the navy, proposals similar to many of those in the Budget would be necessary whichever side got in, and it was a very difficult thing to raise an extra £20,000,000 by taxation, even in a_ rich country like England, without pinching somebody’s toes. “ I went Home a very strong tariff reformer,” said Mr Gould. “Tariff reform proposals have still a great attraction for me. but after reading and hearing a, considerable amount about both sides of the subject, I am very doubtful if the benefits to England, apart from what they might be to her colonies, would be as great as are anticipated by the advocates of reform. I think, at anyrate. that a preference involving the taxation of food is only permissible to the extent of the present taxes on food. I don’t think that it would be either wise or proper to put any further load on the shoulders of the working men of Great Britain, and if preferential duties are placed on food, relief lo an equivalent amount must be given by reductions in the present revenue food taxes. Further, if the tariff is confined to the taxation of foreign manufactures, the revenue derived therefrom will be insufficient to avoid the necessity of raising money by some of the methods proposed by the Liberal Budget. The taxing of partivmanufactured goods, which are largely imported, or, as some sav. dumped into England, is also a very difficult question, because. I am informed, in some of England's largest and most important trades they are dependent on the simply of these goods, and only bv their importation is the English manufacturer able to hold his own in foreign markets. I think that if the Conservatives get into power thev will have anything but a rosy time when they attempt to nut their tariff measures into practice. Every trade will endeavour to get its own measure of protection, and at the same time ask for the retention on the free list of some partlv-manu factored imported article which they may consider essential to profitable production. Recently Mr J. Ellis Barker, with the approval of his partv. stated that he would publish in the Dailv Express 101 reasons in favour of tariff reform, and Mr Chiozza Money undertook to publish replies to these reasons in the Daily News. At the end of 30 days Mr Ellis Barker threw up the sponge, and published the balance of his reasons in pamphlet form. It may be that Mr Money is the abler of the two, but having read both the reasons and the replies, it aoneared to me very obvious that either Mr Money was too many for Mr Ellis Barker or else he had a very much better case to argue.”