1899.] The Bye Elections. [135
member, Sir John Austin, had drawn upon himself the censure of some of his committee because he had voted on a question connected with the liquor trade in a way which offended the conscience of the temperance party. He therefore decided to resign his seat, and to challenge the verdict of his constituents, not only upon his past votes against the Scotch Veto Bill and the Clergy Discipline Bill, but upon the general question of his independence in the future. The temperance party put forward Mr. C. H. Boberts, who although in other respects an advanced Badical, unconditionally promised to support the policy of the Church Association, and the five points, already enumerated, of its proposed Church Discipline Bill. The alliance, however, was of little profit to the candidate, for Sir John Austin was re-elected by 5,818 votes, only 2,893 being recorded by his opponent. A week later (July 12) a metropolitan constituency (St. Pancras, East) was called upon to show how far its opinions had changed since the general election. On that occasion the Conservative candidate was returned by a majority of 289 votes. The Badicals on the present occasion had the advantage of a good fighting candidate, Mr. B. F. C. CosteUoe, with strong socialistic tendencies, but although he was able to reduce the Unionist majority he was not able to prove that the metropoli- tan districts were ready to revolt against the Government which they had done so much to place in power. The actual figures showed that Mr. T. Wrightson, a local employer, polled 2,610 votes against 2,423 given to Mr. CosteUoe.
Mr. G. Whiteley's independent course on the Tithes Bating Bill having aroused the anger of many Conservatives of Stock- port he at once offered to resign his seat, at the same time re- serving to himself the right of coming forward as an independent candidate. This proposal was the subject of long deliberation by the Conservative caucus, which was credited with having taken advice in other quarters, and finally Mr. Whiteley was requested to retain his seat on his own conditions. Without formally taking his place among the Opposition, he requested that he should be no longer summoned by the Ministerial whips.
Outside Parliament, which seemed to exercise a depressing effect upon all parties, there was some interesting platform speaking, the members of the Ministry and of the Opposition being apparently equally anxious to avail themselves of this method of advancing their views without the restraint of con- tradiction. Mr. Balfour, speaking at the dinner of the National Union of Conservative Associations, reminded his hearers that " Liberalism " was no longer the monopoly of one party in the 8tate, but the common possession of both, and that the diver- gence now between them was on the methods of carrying out Liberal principles. When, however, Liberals declared that the principle of self-government required Home Bule, that demo- cracy required the abolition of the House of Lords, and that
