TOWN VERSUS COUNTRY.
TO THB EDITOB. SIR,— Mr Leadley m bis second letter so completely deserts the position taken up m h : s first, that I hardly think it necessary to reply, but as he makes several charges which I think are not justifiable, I have to ask you to find me space to clear myself. I am charged with giving a narrow and local cast to the discussion. I reply, I only pointed out a, probable reason for no act ; on having been taken J lam not certain what the population of the borough of Ashburton is, but had it been over 2coo we would have teen subjected to the 33$ deduction, notwithstanding the f iet that we form part of a country district. I deny that I .ought \o bring popular odium on Mr Leadley m connection with this ma ter. Mr Leadley is a pcr-onnl friend of mine, a- d he is 'he last man I should thiuk of damaging m any way. If I have used ore wcrd of abusi I am so ry for it, and hereby withdraw it and humbly apologise. I cm the more readily do this as my case is not at all m need of such support. From the latter part of the second paragraph I of *-'r Leadlcy's first letter 1 gathered that he I thought representation should be iv propor- ' tion to taxation ; if that is not his meaning, I I must siy that notwithstanding lis wonderful command of language he is extremely ill at ponvejing what he really means. Mr Leadley J ttow says he thinks the ploughman should hay* '
as much vo'ing power as the largc-t farmer, and the a-t san as much as the ploughman, wat then was the meaning of his ictter? The whole o' that went to .show tint as the country districts paid more taxes and produced m*re wca'th than tnvnsitwas only rieht that those distiicts should ha> c more repres nta'ion.
Mr Leadley says that some two y ears a:o I held and expressed views very different to ' th *se I have now expressed, well surely a man may chance his mind m tv?*. years— I think my friend has ch.ngcd his m less time — but I have no recollection of having he'd or expressed views differinc* ma' crially f:om those F now h Id, pcrhips Mr I cidley will refresh my nic.nory ; he nry have misunderstood me. Mr I.eadley next prcceeds to defend the ationsoflhe country pa- ty on the "adult male population " argument. As I happen to believe that the franchise ousdit to be extended t"> women, T have to differ with my friend again; besides one of the strongest arguments of ihose who oppose lemale s.'ftVagc is that the ladies are best represented by their husbands, brothers and sweethearts Mr Leadley appears to think their couutry cousins are their natura! representatives; and rgain would it not be fair to put against the extra wo r^en m towns the larce number of sundowners m tie country. Had Mr Leadley confined hiinrclf to the population argument m his first letter mine would not have been written. I am, etc., James Keir.
Permanent link to this item
TOWN VERSUS COUNTRY., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2193, 7 August 1889
TOWN VERSUS COUNTRY. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2193, 7 August 1889
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.