The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1926. THANKS TO MISS MELVILLE!

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12422, 16 April 1926, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1926. THANKS TO MISS MELVILLE!

The of the Eden by-election comes as no surprise. Miss Melville, as was expected, decided the issue. She had to poll some 2000 votes to ensure the success of the Labour candidate. She secured that number—and more. Mr Mason’s victory is, therefore, a rather bloodless one. With the Second Reformer out of the way, the Government would have scored by a comfortable majority. As it was, its official candidate was only narrowly defeated. The support accorded Miss Melville was chnsiderable, when all the circumstances are taken into account. It would not have been so relatively heavy had there not existed a feeling that, in one way or another, the cards had been stacked against her at the selection and in favour of Sir James Gunson. The grounds for that suspicion were not convincing; nevertheless the idea was prevalent. Other factors which would bring Miss Melville votes were the memory of her sturdy against Mr Bartram and the promise of the “next chance” which, she declares, was given her last year by the Reform organisation. Rightly or wrongly, Miss Melville believed that automatically she was entitled to the party nomination for Eden, and that was the belief of her friends also. These Considerations must have exercised a certain amount of influence yesterday. Even so, Miss Melville was ill-advised to persist in the contest after the delegates had decided on Sir James Gunson. That was poor tactics on her part. She could not hope to win, and in the event of a Labour success, because of her vote-splitting, her politi- ' cal future, so far as the Government was concerned, was ended. As we said yesterday, it would have paid her better to have pocketed her disappointment for the time being and waited for the next Parliamentary door to open. There is nothing significant in the outcome. Had his representative beaten Sir James Gunson in a straight-out battle, Mr Holland could justifiably have exulted. As it is, Mr Mason enters the House on a substantial minority vote. There is nothing there to induce a swelled head in Labour or depress any well-balanced Reformer. Ihese things happen occasionally. If we are to have Mr Holland as Leader of the Opposition, we shall simply have to put up with it. We could tolerate him the more in mat position if he would drop a measure of his silly prejudices and cultivate a broader outlook on the big questions of r dnal policy.