THE WARDS QUESTION.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10887, 12 February 1901, Page 6

THE WARDS QUESTION.

DISCUSSION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THH BUUNDAKIKS OF THE WARDS TO BE READJUSTED. A£ the ordinary meeting of the City Council last night, the Finance and ByIm\y Committee reported that they had considered the question vi the wards of the j city, and recommend id, that the city be j divided into lour v.arti.i. that Richmond Ward be included in the .North-east Ward, | and that each ward have a representation | of three Councillors,: also that the Town Clerk take the necessary *teps to carry out the alteration, under the powers given him I by section 182 o£ the Municipal Corpora- j tions Act. 1900. In moving the adoption of the report, Cγ. Smith (Chairman e/f the Committee) said that, it was an unpleasant thing to deprive a district of privileges it had enjoyed, but some change in the representation (A the city wards was necessary under the Municial Corporations Act. Either a change had to be made-, or the citizens would hare to be content with two-thirds of its former Councillors. It was quite true that under I the proposal of the report Richmond would loik> its present representation, but it would be represented equally-with the Southeast ward, and it would be ;of advantage to Richmond. Richmond vis usually considered as apart from the city, and it was generally said that it had an undue share j of expenditure, attention, and representation. The alteration would make Richmond an integral part of the city, and I uould receive as much consideration as any j other part. Other alternatives had been the ; alteration of the boundaries of the wards j or the abolition of the wards—but tiie latter would have been a retrograde step, and the former was not considered desirable. Cγ. Morris seconded tii-e motion, and said he saw nothing but fairness in the proposal. Cr. Sort'ijso-ii moved, as an amendment, that the North-west and South-west Wards : I should each bs represented by three members, and the North-cast, South-east, and ; Richmond two members each. He said if ; Cr. Smith's motion were carried it would I bs the death knell to any other borough join- ; ing the city, because the city had not kept _ faith with the one that had joined. He claimed th»:t as a ward Richmond Ward j had twen the most progressive one in the j city, and had r*wd itself to.the extent of Is 3d in the £ for special improvements. j Cr. Samuels seconded the amendment, and said it would be unjust if the proposal of the Committee were agreed to. Considering the wav Richmond had been treated h? did not know whether it would not have been •' bttter out of til? city. The city had not attempted to make Richmond attractive to persons seeking residences, and he could show them streets in Richmond that were still in a state of nature. ' j Cr. Gray said Cr. Sorensen had seemed to imply that when Richmond pined there was a bargain that it should be represented by three Councillors; but he (Cr. Gray) wished it distinctly understood that no such conditions had been made. As an indication ol the unfair representation in the Council, he said that according to the last; valuation each member from Richmond represented property valued at £2586, whilst each re- ■ preventative of the South-east Ward represented £26,537. If the four other wards were represented on the same basis as Richmond there would bs 84 members, in the Council. According to population Rich- ' mond was entitled to one and a half mem- ; bers. ' , ! Cr. Loughnan said the Committee .had entirely lost sight of the principle underlying representation—that representation is according to population, and had nothing to do with property or area. If the Council j passed the proposal of the Committee, it would not be entitled to the approbation of those whom it represented. ' ! Cr. Morris sa-id he supported the Com- ' mittee's proposal on the understanding that. there would be a readjustment of the boundaries of the wards, so that the population and rateable value should be as nearly Uβ t possible equal. i Cr. Green thought that the boundaries of • the proposed four wards should be readjusted. Crs. Scott and Piudhoe spoke to a similar ! effect. J Cr. Clarke pointed out that under the j Act the liovernor-in-Council fixed the wards, ■ and that thsie was no other basis but that' of i>"|>ul:ttion on which the city could be i divided into wards. Richmond did not a-sk for the continuation of its three repre- j sentatives ; all that was wanted was the ; representation it was entitled to —one and a half, and as the half would be the top half it would mean two. ; Cr. Appleby considered it was a sorry ; day for Christchurch when Richmond was j taken in. At present the division of the city was not a fair one. j Cr. Cooper thought the voting power of the wards should be equalised. I Cr. Smith, in reply, stated that it was ' the intention of the Committee to readjust • the boundaries of the wards, and to equalise i the representation according to population. ; Ultimately the report of the Committee ! was adopted, with the addition of the clause ! that the boundaries of the wards be readjusted, and a fair representation on the basis of population be provided for; the Committee to report on these matters. Cr. Gray pointed out that the Act provided that the roll must be ready by ! March sth. and it would therefore be neces-! sary for the Committee to report at next j meeting. j