New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-02-21

Mr.. Ayrtous better qualities that his may yet
reopen under better auspices p
Southwark, offers one more example. OF which 1
have had TO note 80 many. Of an easy ana certain
means Of throwing away a seat The borough Is on
titled to two members; three went to the poll ono
comes in ut the head Tory takes the second seat
and the two other Liberals left TO regret 700 so
that they did not sacrifice selfish hopes to the wei
fare of the party. Mr. 0dger was one OF the oeato"
two and his claims were, suppose OF high oroer'
His rival, Mr. Dunn, might have gwen way OF 'nc'o
might have been an arbitration. One cannot o"'
wonder what has become of the discipline Vi 'no
Liberal party 1t was never so GOOD as tha' VI 'n0
Tories but il ought 10 suffice for such eAtrhe o"'o'
as Southwark, the Tower Hamlets Not'insna",'
and the many other boroughs III "ni.n
the same sort of scandal mas peoh Wv
messed. King Caucus has many vices, but
also has virtues and among them that OF enforcing
loyalty to the party and of Furnishing disloyalty at
the expense not of the party, but of the offender
Mr. Odgers defeat scores one more on the wrong
side of the workingmens ledger. Mr. Howeils
failnre ret AyIesbury will not mend matters,
though no and his comrades may remember WIN
gratitude that Mr. Gladstone went out OF MS way 10
write letter urging Mr.. Howells claims upon the
electors of that town.
In Chelsea again the same spectacle recurs with
similar result and with less excuse for the intrud
ing candidate The two sitting members Sir Chaiies
Dixie and Sir Henry Hoare, made common cause.
A Conservative, D1T. Gordon, challenged LOT ono OF
the two seats, which he had small chance of win
ming. Suddenly MIR. Kiell appears on the scene,
and nothing could induce him to disappear. do
never had u chance of winning, and unless lie
secretly desired the of the Tory 1t Is DIM
cult to conjecture for his obstinacy In the
end he drew off votes enough from Sir Henry Hoare
TO let in Mr.. Gordon, Mr. KEEL himself polling less
than 1900 out of over 1900 Sir Charles Dixie
heads the poll with over 1000, result that must
surprise and shock not few respectable monarch
lists, taught as they have been to believe that Sir
Charles had long ago ruined himself politically by
attacks on the Queen which he never made.
In fact his popularity in Chelsea depends largely ON
his personal qualities. He is respected and liked by
hosts of people who neither know nor care much
about his most radical views. They know him to be
sincere, they heartily admire his courage and perse-
yerance they recognize that his abilities are OF
high order they see that he has taken excellent care
of his constituents interests and they vote for him.
Not few Conservatives were among his supporters
Sir Charles did not, fact stand as a Liberal but
az a purely independent candidate, pledged to
support nobody-which Mr.. KEEL might have
urged as an excuse for his own pretensons
bad he had wit enough He declined all pledges on
all questions and In declining them presented an
example of manness and self-reliance which cannot
| be too warmly commanded to future candidates.
| subjected to catechiSm Few old members were so
| well prepared for sudden contest; but you may
Judge by one fact how even the most prudent were
| taken unawares When Sir Charles arrived in town
| from Brighton on the day of the dissolution. ne
| found no committee room to be had in the particu
| lar street where he wanted his headquarters. He
solved the difficulty by buying house outright,
| and before night was installed in 1t and hard at
work.
Here at least ends the list of Liberal defeats in
Metropolitan boroughs. In Greenwich, Tower
Hamlets Chelsea, Southwark and Marylebone, one
seat each was lost 10 Westminster. two in the City
Of London three; in all 10 out of 3D. In the last gen
eral election the Tories won but two seats. Never
was such a revolution known, for nowhere III the
kingdom was Liberalism thought TO be more pro-
foundly rooted than IN these great Metropolitan
constituencies. But even where seats have not
been actually lost the decrease in Liberal maorties
has been marked. In Lambeth Sir James Lawrence
and Mr. Macarthur who were chosen in 1868, by over
1000 majority have now but few hundred over the
same opponent In Hackney. blunder about polls
and ballots occurred. which greatly interferod with
the voting, but Mr.. Reed and Mr.. H0lms are re-
turned as chosen by lass than a thousand ma
iority against former majOTltes of 5000 and
5000 Fnsbury sends back Mr.. McCullah Torrens-
one of the best men in Parliament-and Alderman
Lush but their total vote less by thousands than
at the last election and their majOTites are reduced
from 1000 and 5000 apiece to about 1000. In the
other great cities, Liverpool. Glasgow, and Man
chester though there was less to lose the same decay
and DISCRIMINATION manifest 1t would be rash
to say that the Liberal party has gone to pieces
that it never can rally under the same banner and
the same leaders. But the disaster it has undergone
is not an ordinary defeat and though the causes of
il lie in part on 1.-The surface and do not seem ire
mediable it is by no means clear at the moment
what can be done to restore order or 10 revive its
courage. e.. vs.