LONDONDERRY’S VERDICT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8345, 4 February 1913, Page 6

LONDONDERRY’S VERDICT

Our anticipation of yesterday is al* ready realised. Wo predicted that the enemies of democracy in “explaining” the verdict of the Londonderry electors in favour of Home Rule, would attempt to gloss ever this most significant setback by ixnnling to tbe smallness of iho Nationalist majority. The official mouthpiece of anti-Liboralism in New Zealand has already taken up this lino of argument, urging that Mr Asquith is unlikely to regard “the conversion of a narrow Unionist majority into a narrow Nationalist majority” as a vindication of the Homo Rule policy. Tiio ]>oor, distracted squatters’ organ had bettor try to grind out soma other tune. Not only is that paper an obviously unsuitable and unreliable interpreter of the mind of tbe British Prime Minister, but an absolutely unsafe guide to any who may bo disposed to take it seriously. Mr Asquith, wo should say, is likely to find the Londonderry Vote just as helpful and stimulating as it must bo disagreeable to all the forces of Reaction that havo erected their last forlorn hope on the alleged united opposition of Ulster to self-government. As for the “narrow Unionist majority” which has now become a minority, what are the facts? The Tory Marquis of Hamilton had sat for Londonderry City for over a dozen years. Ho had contested three eloo. lions, and had once the good luck to bo unopposed. At the last election (in December, 1910) bis margin of votes was the greatest that any member for Londonderry had received in the last thirty years! That is the “narrow Unionist majority” the unhappy Conservatives havo lost—and lost in Ulster, of all places in the Kingdom 1 Wo await wvth amused interest any further “explanations” that may b« forthcoming.