The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 15, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10221, 15 December 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 15 , 1893.

We do not find fault with the Conservatives for being thankful for small mercies. Indeed, wo rather admire their gratitude and cheerfulness. At the same time, their efforts to extracc consolation from the results of the general election are distinguished rather by imagination than by accuracy. We have already dealt with their attempts to foreshadow the breaking up of the Liberal Party. We have now to notice the somewhat curious moral which certain Opposition newspapers have drawn from the urban elections. These journals have to admit that the country elections have gone terribly against the Conaervatives. For three years Mr Holleston and bis followers had been warning, flattering and instructing the working farmers of the Colony. As a consequence this class,, to lead which their efforts had been bent, to represent which they had specially -claimed, has renounced them and all their works. By way of a set-off to this unparalleled disaster certain Opposition critics profess to perceive in the towns the beginning of a reaction against the Government. Hitherto it has been made almost a reproach to the Ballance-Seddon Ministry that its support has beeu plainly received from townspeople, How we are assured that, whereas the erring and obstinate farmer has been led astray by the blandishments of the deceitful democrats, the acuter townsman is waking up to the position, and is about to abandon the errors of Liberalism. A careful examination of the electoral returns must, however, entirely dispel this pleasant illusion. It is quite true that the number of Liberal members for the four large centres has not increased. But then it is not at all necessary to increase a majority which, for three years, baa been about three to one. The important point is that this overwhelming superiority is still iu no way lessened. An exact comparison between city and suburban representation in 1893 and 1890 is not quite easy, owing to changes of boundaries and the extinction of two electorates. Nevertheless a comparison can he made quite closely enough to show the relative positions fairly. Three years ago the city and suburbs of Auckland returned two Liberals, three Independents, aad two Conservatiyes. The Independents afterwards joined the Liberal Party. Now, we see in and around Auckland two Oppositionists, Messrs Button and Mitchelson, and four members of the Liberal Party, Sir George Grey, Sir Maurice O’Sorke, Mr Lawry, and Mr Growther. One constituency, that of Newton, has ceased to exist. In Wellington the position is unaltered. During the last Parliament Messrs Duthie and Fisher aad Dr Newman were in Opposition, and Mr M’Lean supported the Government. Mr Bell has replaced Mr Fisher, which improves the Opposition, and Sir Robert Stout has replaced Mr M’Lean, which means that a strong Liberal has taken the place o£ a weak one. In Christchurch, as our readers know, the position is unchanged: all the city and suburban seats are occupied by Ministerialists. In Dunedin the Government has gained a supporter. It has also carried the Port Chalmers seat, but against this the constituency of Dunedin Suburbs, represented in last Parliament by a Ministerialist, has disappeared. The net gain in Dunedin is therefore one. That may be set off against the loss of an Auckland City seat by the election of Mr Button. As far, therefore, as the four large centres and their suburbs are concerned the strength of the Ministerial Party will not be less in the new Parliament than iu the last. Out of the twenty-one city and suburban members sixteen Liberals will face five Conservatives.

But if we pass from the four large centres and the suburbs to the other towns and boroughs of the colony we find the disproportion even more remarkable. Apart from the districts already alluded to there are sixteen towns in New Zealand of over 2000 inhabitants. These vary in size from HoMtika, with its 2200 people, to Napier, whose population, is now bat a trifle short of 9000. But politically they do not vary. Their colour is almost uniformly Liberal. To he exact, fifteen of them are represented by Liberals, and one borough alone, that of Hastings, has sufficient singularity to prefer a Conservative member. The strength of the Liberal vote in these towns has always been great; but tho capture last month of Napier, Nelson and Palmerston North has rendered it extraordinary. There is another and perhaps, a simpler way of showing the loyalty of the townspeople to Liberal principles. There are in New Zealand altogether thirtysix cities and boroughs with a population of 2000 and upwards. Out of these, three, namely Devonporfe, Petone and Hastings, are included in districts which returned Conservatives. Two more, namely, Auckland City and Wellington City are partly represented by Oppositionists. But the remaining thirty-ono have returned Liberals. Moreover, in both Auckland and Wellington, cities, as we pointed out last week, the Liberal vote exceeded the Conservative. Mismanagement and vote-splitting, and nothing else, led to the loss of certain seats in those centres. That the Liberal Party predominates in the rural electorates is admitted. Anyone who doubts it has merely to examine the election returns and glance at the map. But the extraordinary strength of the party in the towns and boroughs has been questioned, and wo have, - therefore, thought io worth while to place on record the foregoing facts and figures.