THE LOST SEAT.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVIII, Issue 4, 23 May 1890, Page 20

THE LOST SEAT.

There was a Unionist rally at Ayr Burghs as we (Nation) anticipated. The four hundred aud odd Unionists who either slept on their 1 200 majority in 1888, or did not see their way to voting for an Irish rackrenter against a Scottish Liberal, re-appeared once more and decided this contest. The Unionists won, therefore, by a majority of 130, which is 1,145 under th»ir 1886 majority. The Home Rule vote, on the other hand, was higher than it has ever beea, and has increased even on the vote that won in 1888. The Liberal vote in 1885 was 2,460 ; in 1886 the Liberal Home Bule vote sank to 1,498 ; in 1888 it rose to 2,331 ; now it stands at tbe high-water mark of 2,480. On the other band the Unionist vote was higher in 1886 than it is at prtsent ; co that while the tide flows on the side of Home Rule, it ebbs on tbe Bide of the UnioD. Nevertheless, the capture, by a majority of 130 votes, of a seat held in 1886 by a majority of 1,175 votes is" claimed as a great Unionist victory I May the Coercionista find their majority reduced by 1,045 votes in every contest. If they do, the balance in the final tot will be on the wrong side. This is the Spectator's comment on the Ayr election : " It is not a victory that should induce Unionists to exalt iheir horn, or even to indulge in Bangui ne expectations ; but it should convince them that theie is no epnngtide flowing strongly towards Home Rule, no wave of emotion that is in the least likely to sweep away Unionists' effort?. If by industry and sobriety of judgment wo can regain a few inches of political ground, by more industry and still more discrimination we may regain a few furlongs, or even a few miles. We cannot throw up our caps over the Ayr Burghs, but we should take heart to struggle on patiently, tenaciously, doggedly, and even cheerfully." This is doleful-dumpißh rejoicement surely. But why comment on tbe eloquent humility and melancholy of that " •yen cheerfully."