THE "INDEPENDENT" MINISTERIALIST.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1271, 28 October 1911, Page 4

THE "INDEPENDENT" MINISTERIALIST.

An interesting feature of the election campaign, both in and out of Parliament, upon which we have already had to comment, is the eagerness of most of the Government supporters to disclaim full allegiance to the Ministry. It is only the Ministerialist dummy in the Legislative Council who is an out-and-outer— the man who has not to go before the public for election. He can let himself go, even to the extent of proclaiming, with appalling frankness, as the Hon. G. Jones did, that his "fealty" requires him never, whatever the circumstances may be, to give any "advantage" to the Government's opponents. But the Ministerialist M.P. or would-be M.P. just now fights very shy, as a rule, of admitting himself to be a solid party man at all. That is of no little significance; for in 1908 the Ministerialist candidates quite tumbled over themselves in their anxiety to persuade the public that they bore the brand of the party. Wellington people remeriiber the funny squabble between Mn. Izard and Mr. Bolton as to who had received Sir Joseph Ward's imprimatur, and the still funnier quarrel of Messrs. W. M'Lean and G. Winder as to which of them was the more faithful servant of the party. Sir Joseph Ward's imprimatur 'is now rather shied at. Even Mn. Fletcher does not like to advertise that he has received it; and, indeed, we do not wonder. Ward is no longer, a name to conjure with; it destroyed too many hopeful fellows three years > ago. This makes the more surprising Mr. L. M. Isitt's reported admission on Wednesday— as recorded by our evening contemporary—that he is a "thick and thi supporter of the Government." Mr Isitt has sinoa oxplained that he di not declare himself a thick and thi: supporter of the Government, bu that he supposed his opponent would declare him as such. The cas of _Mit. Isitt is really rather inter csting. For a week or so past ther has been an entertaining con troverr.y about him in the Christ church papers. The Press, rccallinj his very hollow professions of "in dependence," reviewed in rather i sorrowful tone the brief Parlia mentary career, of the, Christchurcl member, with its abundant proof: of his eagerly obsequious scrvitud< to the Ministry. Mr. Isitt retortec in a very angry letter, which is un consciously far funnier than anj prepared humour could be. Hi insisted loudly upon his "indepen denee." He was opposed to Mr Massey (whom, of course, he has ,1 perfect right to oppose, if h< chooses), but ho was not a Govern ment_ follower; he stood for "grcai political principles." The Press. which we suspect of having expect cd to "draw" Mr. Isitt in just this way, promptly quoted several cases in which the member for Christ church North had deliberately voted as a party man with the Government against motions that every fair-minded man approved of, that overyono in the House approved of in his heart, and that were just exactly the tests that a really independent member would rejoice in. But Mn. Isitt forgot "principles"; ; ho missed his opportunities. We . cite his case not because he is of any i particular importance, but because • his attitude happens to have been ; much discussed in his town. In the House he is as servile a supporter of the Government as the majority of their following arc, but ho is wise enough to realise that he must 1 strive to persuade his constituents that he is an independent politician. It is no longer a recommendation to be known as a sound Government supporter; nobody any longer wishes to be so known when he seeks the suffrages of the people. Nor, as the by-elections for llangitikei, Auckland East, and Christehurch North plainly showed, is the Government ignorant of the change in public sentiment. It knew its men in those cases, but it was astute enough not to ruin their chances by publicly admitting its ownership of them.