LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE NEWCASTLE ELECTION.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THZ " SPECTATOR:1
Stn—It is interesting to compare the voting at Newcastle at the General Election with that at the recent by-election. At the former election there were 170 plumper& for Sir Walter Plummer and 25 for Mr. Renwick, also 11,144 splits between them. Therefore 11,339 electors voted for one or both of the Conservative candidates and for no one else. I think I may call these men the . Old Guard of the Conservative Party. They will never be made doubtful or lukewarm by any crime, folly, or inefficiency, past or threatened, on the part of their leaders. Mr. Cairns got 804 plumpers, also 17,394 splits with Mr. Hudson, the Labour candidate, 192 with Sir Walter Plummer, and 30 with Mr. Renwick. The men who plumped for Mr. Cairns or split between him and Sir Walter Plummer or Mr. Renwick were, I take it, Liberals who would not vote for the workmen's candidate, and some of whom even tried to keep him out by putting in a Tory. The men who split between Mr. Cairns and Mr. Hudson would all be sufficiently in sympathy. with orthodox Liberalism to oppose the Tory candidates. For my present purpose I may therefore describe as. Liberals the 18,422 men who voted for Mr. Cairns. Mr. Hudson got the above-mentioned splits with Mr. Cairns. He also got 1,013 plumpers, 436 splits with Sir Walter Plummer, and 24 with Mr. Renwick,—the last three categories yielding together 1,473 votes. The men who gave him these votes were evidently recalcitrant Socialists or Labour men, some of whom would rather have been represented by a Tory than a Liberal. There were also 55 spoiled votes, so that 31,289 electors in all went to the poll. I believe this was something like 88 per cent. of all the voters on the register, a heavy poll, but I have not the exact figures at hand. The register on which the by-election was fought had about 600 more names on it than that in force at the General Election, but it was based on the qualifications valid in July, 1907, and there had been during the intervening fifteen months an enormous number of removals. Probably the numbers of available electors did not differ much at the two elections. Now look at the figures for the by-election. Mr. Shortt only got 11,720 votes, 6,702 fewer than the number of the people who voted Liberal at the General Election. The Liberal deserters dis- posed of their votes as follows : 2,524 of them went clean over to Mr. Renwick, bringing his poll, with the help of the Conservative Old Guard, up to 13,863. A further con- tingent of 1,498 Liberal deserters went over to Mr. Hartley, . and these, with the 1,473 recalcitrant Socialists of the General Election, brought his poll up to 2,971. The increase of 17 in the number of spoiled votes accounts for a few more, but at least 2,663 of those who voted Liberal at the General Election must have abstained from voting at all at the by-election.
It is not possible even for those who took some part in the election. to feel any certainty as to the causes which produced this remarkable defection. Mr. Shortt was a. magnificent candidate,—a genial, straightforward, fluent, and effective speaker. He was in full sympathy with Liberalism as expounded and practised by the present Govern- ment. He was untiring in his meetings, and was assisted by . enthusiastic canvassers, who were not, however, as numerous
as could have been wished until the last few days of the con- test. Both candidates bad several able speakers to help them. Of course the Tories had the help of the suffragists and the Primrose Dames, the Sporting League, the parsons and the publicans, the Tariff Reformers and Coal Consumers, the "disgruntled" Irishmen, and (indirectly) of the Socialists. Our city was inundated with hordes of blatant, unscrupulous windbags, spouting at every, corner, nominally for one or other of the above-mentioned leagues or coteries, but really for the Tory candidate. These gutter orators, paid no doubt in most cases by Tory sympathisers, kept our town in a good-humoured uproar day and night. They were followed and cheered or jeered, as the case might be, by crowds of boys and girls, of unemployed and unemployables, and by the general riff-raft of the city, but I do not know that the political influence of
• the speakers was very great. Nor do I think that Tariff Reform had.much to do with the turn-over, though bad times have he►e been aggravated by stubborn strikes, and starving men are apt to listen to any quack who undertakes to find them bread. Dislike by the middle class of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and exasperation among the working class at its meagre and tentative character, had a good deal of influence, I think. Then there was the Eight Hours Bill for mines. It has never been popular, even among the pitmen, in this locality, and many people of all classes fear that it will raise the price of coal. The Licensing Bill probably lost the Liberals more votes than any one other cause. It has many enemies besides the publicans. The recovery of the monopoly value of licensed houses for the State would not be generally unpopular if it stood alone; but it does not. Great numbers of sober, respectable people fear that their comfort is going to be interfered with, either now or in the near future, for the problematical benefit of a few drunkards and for the gratification of a few teetotalers. Any one who strolls along a main road leading out of one of our great cities on a fine Sunday morning must be impressed by the crowds of men, women, and children making for the country by motor, tram, carriage, and bicycle. He would be equally struck by the number of excursionists going out of town at any of the great railway stations. Such people look on the Licensing Bill as the work of Sunday-closers and Aboli- tionists, to be followed, most likely, by more stringent measures still. They will strenuously resist any measure that seems likely to interfere with their holiday excursions by making it more difficult than it is at present for them to obtain reasonable refreshment. It is an important fact that the teetotalers have by their zeal and organisation obtained an influence in the Liberal Associations and over Liberal policy which is out of all proportion great if com- pared with the number of voters that they can bring to the poll, One cannot speak with any certainty, but I think I have indicated some of the factors which may have aided in bringing about the Liberal defeat. It only remains for me to suggest one more : "the swing of the pendulum,"—in other words, the permanent weakness of democracies, fickleness.—
Previous page
