CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RED ATTACK.

Nomination day over, London will for the next seven days be in the throes of the miniature general election which is to decide whether the Socialists are to gain power on the L.C.C. It will be a week of intensive electioneering by the two main parties in the contest, the Red attackers, be they styled Labour, Socialist, or Communist, according to their area of operations, and the virtually closed-up ranks of the constitutional groups, the Municipal Reformers and the Progressives. The latter parties, old and tried opponents, have been forced by the open threat of a socialised London, run on an admittedly Communistic plan, to join hands this time. They stand together in most places in defence of a sane and free system of society, in which municipality shall take its proper place without encroaching either upon the personal liberties or the means of livelihood of the humblest citizen. They are meeting with the support of the citizens generally, despite the bitter element introduced into the attack.

A typical constituency is that at East Fulham, where Mrs. Hudson Lyall and Councillor Frank Holmes are confronted by two Labour nominees, Messrs. Thomas M. Cox and Joseph Hayward. The opposition have paid Mrs. Hudson Lyall the compliment of directing their main attack against her candidature. At a recent mass meeting they had so much to say in criticism of her distinguished record of service on the L.C.C. and its committees that they forgot all about their own programme, to air which the meeting was primarily called. The facts are that Mrs. Hudson Lyall has been far too assiduous in her attention to her duties to give much cause for satisfaction to those who would displace her. She has established several excellent landmarks of her association with London local government, notably the system of signs and regulated queues at the omnibus stopping-places throughout London and the starting of the long-overdue sewer enlargements in the Hammersmith-road. These will be a boon alike to the neighbourhood which has suffered so much by flooding, and to the working-class, who will have a sure source of employment there for a long period ahead. In respect of a great deal for which she is now criticised, Mrs. Hudson Lyall is unrepentant, and even proud. Needless to say, it is a matter of her avowed opposition to the Socialistic proposals which are the favourite theme of her adversaries.

“I am dead against municipalising everything,” she declared yesterday. “They want it for railways, milk, meat, and every other commodity, and I shall always vote against it. They say that they could reduce the rates by 1s 4d if they could municipalise the means of transport. My retort is that they are far more likely to raise the rates 1s 4d. Some of their number have said that they will not rest until the Red Flag is flying over the new County Hall. Others want the history of the Russian revolution taught the children in the schools by a Communist teacher. That is the sort of thing which we are assured would happen if they got control of the County Council. Therefore it is apparent that Socialism is the big issue at this election.

The Socialists cannot forgive Mrs. Hudson Lyall for her sturdy opposition. They find little tangible evidence to support their attack upon her, so they proceed to manufacture it. They have just found out an alleged deficiency in respect of the “Bag Wash.” Now, the “Bag Wash” has long loomed large in local affairs Fulham way. It is a municipal laundry system adopted amid much travail some time ago, and Mrs. Hudson Lyall is now charged with having done nothing in support of it on the London County Council. The facts are the reverse. She was a firm supporter, her one desire being that it should not become a burden upon the ratepayers. As everybody knows, such concern has come to be regarded as a grave offence in the eyes of the people who would run London – hence the unfounded charges against which Mrs. Hudson Lyall has been compelled to utter a public protest.