Preston has returned another Conservative to Parliament in the place of Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Kerr having been returned by the substantial majority of 2,149. It is true that this is little more than half the majority by which" Mr. Hanbury was returned in 1900, but in these days the Government have to be thankful for small mercies, and after the experiences of Woolwich aid Rye, they were not absolutely without fear that Mr. Hodge, the Labour candidate at Preston, might turn a minority of 4,110 into a majority. But Preston, it has to be remembered, ix one of the greatest strongholds of Roman Catholicism in England, and the Education Act of last year, which has aroused the Nonconformists to bitter resentment against the Government and to' some extent alienated even the moderate Churchmen, has the strong approval of the Roman Catholics. Then Been to some extent a ypeased by the pro-ably the working men of Preston have
mised repeal of the shilling duty on corn, The Corn Duty.
Today Mr. Balfour receives a big deputation on this subject, urging the Govern ment to abandon its intention to repeal the tax. Not only the thorough-going Protectionists, who, perhaps, are still not very numerous, are furious with Mr. \itchie and with the Government generally over this matter, but all the agriculturists and many {who esteem themselves good freetraders are strong in their disapproval. It is certainly difficult for sir. Balfour to defend the Government on the score, of consistency. It is all very well to eay that circumstances have been changed by the conclusion of the war; but whea Sir Michael. Hicks-Beach imy the tax last year he clearly intimated that it was not a war tax but was imosed for the purpose of broadening the assis of taxation. The tax was first advocated by so good a Free Trader and so distinguished an economist as Sir Robert Giffen. There is some controversy as to whether the tax has or has not increased the price of bread. Its advocates say it has not; but if so it is difficult to see how the British farmer has been assisted by it, and_why he is so anxious that it should be retained. There is indeed plenty to he said for the repeal of the tax, which is certainly protective in principle; but there is little to be said from the point of view of the Government, for one is forced to the conclusion that they are repealing the tax only because they believe it lost them some by-elections.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.