March 1.
We publish this morning a letter in criticism of our comments on the recent elections and the present Parliamentary position; and while we are not more inclined than "A.M. L." for "endless discussions on home politics," the nature of the attack, not less than the many misconceptions under which our correspondent appears to labour, leaves us no option but to reply to his criticisms. In the first place we would challenge A. M. L.'s" assumption that the Government enjo} undisturbed majority of 124, even if the first division in the House had not refuted his contention. The actual strength of parties in the House, as given in Renter's telegram of February 15, is as follows: Liberals 274; Unionists 273; Labourities 41 Nationalists 82. Of these, the past session has furnished abundant evidence that the Labourites tend more and more to stand aloof; that, by the repeated evidence of their own leaders, they side with the Liberals only when it suits their purpose, and until such time as they may command sufficient numbers to take their own line. The support of the Nationalists is even more unstable. The possibility of Home Rule binds them temporarily to the Liberal side. But as regards the Badget their opinions were sufficiently revealed in the last and on the crucial question of Tariff Reform they also withhold their support. For practical purposes on all issues the Government's majority is whittled down to two—the election of the Rt. Hon. J. W. Lowther as Speaker having robbed the Unionists of one vote. Even thus, there are suggestions of a revolt among extremists of the Liberal party; while the uncertainty of the remainder of the alleged 124 majority is suffi
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.