OXFORD AND MID-NORFOLK.
THE omens come thick for a General Election that shall much more than reverse the defeat of 1892. We are not usually inclined to attach very much importance to by-elections. We have observed again and again that at by-elections constituencies express their personal rather than their political feelings. But still, when, in all kinds of constituencies,—constituencies in Scotland, in the North of England, in the Midlands, in the towns, in the most rural part of East Anglia,—the drift is all in one direction, we may safely conclude that it is not mere personal bias, but political bias, which is drawing men to the poll to express their wish for a change of Government. After the six years of Lord Salisbury's reign, there was distinct evidence that the great towns remained on the whole Conservative, though the rural constituencies were decidedly eager to replace Mr. Gladstone in Office. But now the rural constituencies are as fixed in their determin- ation to dam up the torrent of change as the great towns themselves. Forfar showed the turn of the tide in Scotland; Brigg in Lincolnshire; Evesham, how high that tide was rising in the Midlands ; Oxford, that it was nearly at flood, where in 1892 we had had a bare majority ; and now Mid- Norfolk, which we have wrested from the Gladstonians, though all seemed to be in their favour, indicates that the most rural of rural constituencies, in one of the most depressed of agricultural counties, is losing faith in the great Newcastle programme, and probably that it is even dismayed at the silly Socialism of the proposals which the Congress of Trade-Unions held in the autumn at Norwich ventured to put forth. Mr. Keir Hardie is doing a great work for the Moderates against his will. The Independent Labour party is even a better help to the Unionists than the Disestablishment party, and the Disestablishment party is surpassed by the party for making the House of Commons supreme at a. moment when the House of Commons has been as rash as it has been impatient.
In Oxford the moment was favourable to the Glad- stonians, as many of the University Conservatives were not in residence, and though undoubtedly Lord Valentia was better known and more popular than his opponent, Dr. Fletcher Little, yet the latter had been working hard for the seat before Lord Valentia could have been even thought of, for the soundness of Sir George Chesney's life had never even been suspected. Moreover, the change of a narrow majority of 120 into one of 602 betrayed the fixed determination of the constituency to be found balancing no longer, but to take a decisive line. The Oxford election, however, is not half so remarkable as the Mid-Norfolk election. There the Gladstonian resentment, approaching disgust, against Mr. Higgins for going over to the Unionists was said to be very lively, and everybody agreed that had Mr. Higgins himself stood again, he would have had no chance of winning the seat. Though he did not stand again, the effervescence of the popular feeling against him was all in Mr. Wilson's favour, while Mr. Wilson himself, an employer of local labour, and apparently not unwilling to humour the political caprices of the constituency, was the best candidate that the Gladstonians could have found. Mr. Gurdon was, no doubt, an even better candidate for the Unionists. He is a, large proprietor; so that as candidates, the rivals could not have been much better matched. But the result was as great a surprise to the Unionists as it was to the Gladstonians. The poll was much the largest in recent years,-8,016 against 7,668 in 1892, and only 5,657 in 1886. Yet the pendulum swung back to the popular verdict of 1886, against the Radicals, and instead of a Radical majority of 470, there was a Conservative majority of 208. That seems to show decisively, as the Evesham election also showed, that the agricultural labourers, though many of them may still be dreamers of dreams, are recovering their natural distrust of revolutionary pro- posals, to which we suspect that the violence of the Con- gress of Trade Unions held in Norwich last September has very much contributed. Yet, in Norfolk, as in all the East-Anglian counties, Dissent is very strong; and the result shows, we think, that even Dissent is now less eager for Disestablishment than it is fearful of the results of Socialistic agitation. Hodge is not by any means an enthusiast for the parson, but he is still less disposed to place his freedom and his wages at the disposal of such agitators as Mr. Keir Hardie would instal over the destiny of the working man. We do not believe that in Mid- Norfolk the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill was unpopular, but we do believe that Mr. Arch and Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Delves had produced a consider- able reaction in the minds of the labourers. It is said, and we believe truly said, that but for the out-voters,- that is, those who had property in Mid-Norfolk, but were not resident in the constituency,—the verdict would have gone the other way. But be that as it may, it would not have gone the way it did go but for a very much diminished feeling on the part of the labourers that they wished it to go the other way. It is the relative change in the currents of popular feeling that the politician must watch, not the mere magnitude of them. We think then that, unless some very unexpected turn of events should intervene before the General Election, which is not at all likely, we may anticipate that the constituencies will return a very much more decided verdict on the Conservative side than they returned on the Radical side three years ago.
The reason of this reaction is a complex question. The swing of the pendulum will, unfortunately, account for a good deal in every great democracy, which is always dis- satisfied with what it has achieved, and always more or less desires a change. That would account for a clear change of bias, but not for so great a change as this. The loss of Mr. Gladstone's personal leadership will account for more. It was, we think, a mistake to expect that Lord Rosebery or Sir William Harcourt would gain Mr. Gladstone's influence any the better for accepting slavishly as a legacy Mr. Gladstone's opinions. A very different man was required to lead a revolution than either of these leaders. And even Mr. Gladstone failed to carry the people with him when he discharged his volley at the House of Lords. We hold that Lord Rosebery would have had a better chance, though he could. never have had a good one with the country, if he had stuck to his first intention of postponing Home- rule for Ireland till the "predominant partner" had declared in its favour. That would have, at least, looked like having a mind of his own ; and there is nothing which Englishmen more desire in their Prime Minister than that he should really have a mind of his own. But not only have the people lost a great leader in Mr. Glad- stone, but they have unfortunately acquired a number of small leaders who have managed to inspire our rather diffident democracy with distrust and dismay. The violence of the Temperance agitators has disgusted them. The violence of the diaendowing agitators, especially as evinced in the Welsh Church measure, has disgusted them ; and the violence of some of the Socialist agitators has disgusted the people most of all. All these things have been against the Government, and in favour of the Conservative reaction, which is always proportional to the passion of the destructives. The Government will pro- bably hang on as long as they decently can, though they have themselves declared in favour of triennial Parlia- ments; but they will soon be swept of the Treasury Bench by the popular verdict that, though they have done little evil, they have strenuously endeavoured to do much.
Previous page
