THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7943, 18 January 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1906.

One of the surprises in connection with the General Elections now proceeding in .England is the defeat of Mr A. J. Balfour, a statesman whatever his faults may have been, and an extremely able Prime Minister, so far as foreign affairs were concerned. One has only to glance back but briefly, figuratively speaking,over the last two years, and it is impossible not to realise with appreciation the faot that the reins of power were in the hands of Mr Balfour. However, we are not inclined to think that the results of the election will leave any great amount of room for regret, save with one important exception. We refer to the fiscal reform proposals of Mr Chamberlain. These seem now to have been relegated into a state of oblivion, but, we think, only for a time. We believe that the day is not far distant when the policy of Mr Chamberlain, though he may not have the honour and the glory of securing the victory, will be approved of by Great Britain. It seems to us that it is a modus vivendi that the nation must adopt.

It took Cobden and Bright and many, other patriotic, earnest and able men a full seven years to the nation that tbe repeal of tLe theu com laws was advisable. There was evidence enough of! the fact on every hand, but it took years to persuade the nation to agree to thu change, because the British people are a wonderfully conservative race, and it must be confessed that many of them are so largely through lack of knowledge. We notice that a Southern contemporary draws a parallel between Mr Balfour and Mr Bright, to its own satisfaction, but to our mind the comparison is an unfortunate one. It is quite true that in 1857 the people of Manchester rejected Mr Bright, and now they have treated Mr Balfour similarly, hut there we think the comparison, if such it can be termed, pretty nearly ends. Mr Bright was certainly opposed to tbe Crimean war, but ther, as Lord Palmerston once pointed out in a famous debate, Mr Bright was opposed to all wars.. Mr Balfour on the other hand is an Imperialist to his finger tips, and not in the least averse to war, wheu he considers it is advisable in the national interests. Two statesmen more unlike, save that each was fired with the sDirit of patriotism as each of them understood it J, it would be almost impossible tn compare. The fact that Manchester rejected Mr Bright in 1857 and Mr Balfour in 1906 is due to the common oause that brings about the defeat of all politicians, viz., that their political views were unpopular with a majority of their constituents. ***** A strong Labour party is certainly a new feature in the British House of Commons, and that so many "Labour members," as they are termed, have been returned certainly denotes a new era of progress in British politics. It is the satisfactory feature of the elections that in many instances the British working peonle have been loyal to those who are intimately acquainted with their disabilities, and who are both willing and capable of advancing the highest interests of the country. A cable message published in yesterday's issue stated, that the London Times declared that "the Labour party have chosen their time for a new experiment with great judgment, and patriotism, now that foreign relations are settled and peaceful, and trade unusually prosperous." If the press of Groat Britain generally agrees with the Times, and recognises that the Labour party possess judgment, patriotism and energy, the members of that party will certainly enter the new Parliament under happy auspices.

A year or two ago, remarks a contemporary, a number of parents adopted the practice of letting their children run about barefooted. The fad seems to have died out lately, possibly beoause city pavements and suburban roada offer disagreeable features which are not present on the sea-beach, where shoes and stockings are always at a discount. But there is some likelihood of its revival, less from reasons of health than of economy, if the threatened advance in the price of boots takes place, as seems inevitable. The latest mail brings news from London that retailers were still hesitating to increase the price of boots to the public, although hide dealers, tanners, and manufacturers had eaoh raised their tariff. There appears, however, no doubt that before long the British purchaser will have to pay more for his boots, as his Australian brother is doing to-day, and as JNew Zealanders may be doing very soon. It is not a pleasant prospect, for boot bill is already a serious consideration for the man with a family, and any increase in it oannot be regarded lightly. But there have been indications in the leather market for years past that a rise in the cost of the manufactured article was probable, and this has been translated into practical certainty with the rapid advance of the past twelve months.