BRITISH ELECTIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 15

BRITISH ELECTIONS

JUST BEFORE THE BATTLE. A BOOTLESS FORECAST. (Faoit Oub Own Goebespondent.) LONDON "January 14. Considering that the elections will be si thing of the grey past long before this letter can reach New Zealand, it would be gratuitously courting the dishonour of one's predictions to attempt to pick any winners a;i the momentous polling which opens in London to-morrow. And yet it is necessary to remark upon some features of this historic campaign and the relative standing of the issues on the eve of the polling. Some months ago, before the issues had definitely shaped themselves, I obtained the opinions of some members of the House of Commons, which indicated fairly conclusively that the struggle would not be regarded as one in which the Empire was greatly interested. Prima facie it was a domestic conflict —a difference between the two Houses of the Legislature as much as between the two political parties. There was an Empire issue of outstanding importance involved, but it was not then definitely accepted as a relevant one. Now, what struck me very forcibly for the first few weeks of the campaign was the determined manner in which the conflict was confined to the United Kingdom. The colonies were practically not mentioned. Even when tariff reform moved forward to a more prominent position, the discussion touched the question of international rather than Imperial relations. The original idea of Freetrade within the Empire had gone by the board. Consideration showed that it would not be any more acceptable at Home than in the Dominion, and the debate was approached by both sides on the tacit assumption that the keynote of Imperial relations would be preference,' of foreign relations retaliation; and of both - Protection. A RELIGIOUS WAR. And what of the battle itself ? It began as a jehad. It is closing as a hand-to-hand conflict, blow for blow. The present generation in England has no recollection of such a joining of serried forces in a political conflict. At the first onset the Liberals engaged with deep mutterings of an intense religious fervour; the Radicals with cries and imprecations against what they termed the forces of reaction. Then it was one thing only, a war against the Lords" outrance, to the knife. For some weeks no other issue was recognised. Every great cause—education, religion, social reform, civil liberty, Irish autonomy — resolved itself into that, the abolition of the veto of the Lords, xnat fire burned with positive fury, and with widespread bitterness. Public motives, private virtues, personal veracity, were impugned with drastic catholicity. 'Religious objectives were traversed right and left. In the press the camoaign was exceptionally "bitter, for public feeling was stirred to its depths. I do not think that anyone will deny that if the vote had been taken at that stage of the campaign the Liberals would have gone oack to power with their majority not greatly reduced. The singularity of the issue quite precluded the introduction of opinions which, tnough strongly held amongst the public, have not been admitted to the politic* of Parliament. That alone accounts for the practical stifling of the strongest popular movement in England to-day—viz., female suffrage, and of that other aim, not less important, universal training. The former has not been pressed since Mr Asquith's .non-committal assurance at the Albert Hall; the latter was withheld by its devotees, thinking the moment injnuspicious. THE HUMOUR OF IT. But by-and-Dye the main fire burned itself out. The fury against the Lords abated. Men began to see some elements of • humour in the spectacle of a couple of dozen peers —caricatured and abused day in and day out, and ooobing up serenely night after night to face with smiling countenance hordes of irresponsible and wholly delicrhted ~ hecklers. There were some Unionists who at the beginning of the campaign begged and prayed of the Lords to hide themselves and not make matters worse by displaying their abandoned persons to the infuriated multitude. It was very generally felt that they were unwise. But I think it is generally admitted now that there was some method in their madness. It has done both the Lords and the people good to meet across the footlights. Our old friend, "A Voice," has had the time of his life abusing and interrupting his Grace the Duke of Norfolk to his face and in all probability, if he has a vote, he will now cast it for his Lordship. The Radical press has been not a little mortified to see Bill 'Awkins and his Lordship getting on so well together. AT GRIPS IN TARIFF REFORM. And when the storm of religious fervour was well-nigh spent, the Unionists, who had been playing all along to rather 'discouraging hotrses and to some amount of disorder, had brought the Liberals to closer quarters on two other great questions. The tariff reform campaign was bought in the press with exceptional ability. Reluctantly the Liberals had to meet their opponents' arguments, and then, with the prime issue out of the way, the Unionists began to make perceptible headway. They would have made ground more immediately if Mr Balfour had been 3ess reluctant to give doubtful assurances. iThe Unionist leader's advocacy of the new system has been admirably frank throughout, and the best possible tribute to the tardiness of his conversion. He lias carefully stated that he does not put forward" tariff reform as a cure for all unemployment, and he has now distinctly declined to say that, the cost or

bread will not be increased. What he does say is that it will only be increased proportionately. Throughout the controversy I have remarked as significant the use of the phrase "sooner or later" by Mr Balfour and other Unionist leaders when referring to the probable carrying of tariff reform. The situation did no doubt look rather hopeless at the outset, but the unusual circumstances of a leader voicing such doubts of success in a campaign seemed to me ominous. Mr Chamberlain fcas never done so, and would not. He is more optimistic. THE GERMAN BOGEY. And yet another great diversion has come to the aid of the Unionists.. Anxiety with regard to the strength of the navy and the growing power of Germany is no new sentiment even amongst supporters of the Government, and, much as we may suspect the motives of Mr Blatchford in writing at such a moment, we cannot blink the fact that his articles, with all their exposed inaccuracies, had -sufficient foundation to influence public feeling. The only real argument with millions of people in England to-day is Germany : the price of brown bread there, the strength of the army, the savings of the people, the death-rate from consumption, —anything that can be compared. Mr M'Kenna has in the long run replied very effectively to most of the alarms that have been raised, but he hung fire so long and evaded so much that strictly neutral observers became anxious. He has been a very weak strand in the rope. Practically the only Minister attacked on the ground of administration, he has not been reassuring in his replies. It is interesting, by the way, to observe the practically unanimous confidence of the British public in the present efficiency of the army. THE PRICE OF PROTECTION. Now, as to the price of Protection, the battle has waged furiously. American examples have been quoted, and a, certain number of colonials have, helped in the discussion pro and con (chiefly pro). But the greatest bone of contention in this, as "in other questions, has been throughout the .inveterate rival of England, Germany. Do they eat horseflesh in Germany?" Yes, undoubtedly. And dogflesh? Yea, verily. Correspondents have been scavenging for weeks in German villages to discover what the pro-, tected workmen of the Fatherland eat, and one of them, dating his letter from Crottendorf, in Saxony, has just shouted " Eureka." He has found it. There in quiet Crottendorf, in the heart of the "Erz Mountains, where the good wife of " Maurice Bitterlich, horse-dealer and butcher," bends demurely over her knitting, the villagers do actually eat the flesh of the dog. And why? Because it, too, is cheaper than, beef in this protected land, and better than horse. Such arguments, of course, appeal chiefly to the poor man ; but then it is the poor voter whom the parties wish to convert. As for the rolonies, an astonishing amount of faulty information has been served up.