CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 3241, 14 February 1896, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

It is not always safe to gauge the feeling of the colony generally by the result of one election, and it would be rash to assume because the .Government have been beaten at Christchurch that therefore they are to go down at the general election, although corroborative indications are not lacking. But nevertheless when in one of their strongholds, a city electorate, the home of the late Minister of Labour, and the most advanced democratic community in the colony, they can only poll 3916 votes out of 12,936, they should see in the fact a note, of warning not to be passed lightly over. Especially is this so in view of the personal efforts made by the Premier, the Minister of Lands, and the Treasurer to secure the return of the candidate they adopted. It is true that Mr Lewis has but a small majority, but it may very fairly be assumed in the circumstances that an overwhelming proportion of the Prohibitionist vote was directly against the Government, for it is a curious fact that while the Government claim credit for passing the most advanced licensing law in tho world the bulk of the Temperance Party refuse to believe that that was due to sincerity of conviction or to anything else, but a determination to " dish " Sir Robert Stout. Viewed hi this light, the defeat is an exceedingly beavy one. No doubt it will be said that the result is due less to the growing popularity of tho Opposition than to the personal weakness of the Government candidate. To soiuu oxtent this may be true, buteventhis ahows that something has been gained. Timo was, as in the case of Wellington, when a " broomstick," were it labelled with the Government ticket, could get a majority; but undoubtedly that time has gone by, and if Ministers want to make a show at all they must choose men as candidates who, if elected, might bo expected to be decent in their behaviour as well as independent in their character. After all there are not very' great differences between the "ins" and "outs" in the matter of policy, and so long as Parliament is representative of tho sobriety and higher thoughts of the people legislation may not go far wrong. The lesson winch the people of Christchurch have given parties and candidates in this matter will, we hope, have permanent effect. As to Mr Lewis, he is a colonial boy, he has fought the election-fairly and squarely, and deserves his seat. From all we hear and have read of him he will be a woithy member of the House.