THE REPRESENTATION OF LINWOOD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11511, 18 February 1903, Page 6

THE REPRESENTATION OF LINWOOD.

The agitation on the part of some of t&*.■•;:'/ Linwood Council for larger representettotf , V of the borough on the Council of Greater '";,'" Christchurch will now, we hope, be al* >'-'." lowed to die out. The arguments a ? 'i V. favour of altering the boundaries, put foy. j';,} r ward by tlie Linwood delegates at to*. *• ?V. Conference held last night, *were fairly. ';","\ met by the Mayor of Councillor Gray, and others. Tho tion is not a new one. It was at the meeting of Linwood ratepayers at the beginning of last month to sider the question of amalgamation the city. On that occasion the Mayor Linwood referred to the disagreement representation, but said that a suggestta jp| which had been made to meet the dif^" t |gE culty by altering the boundaries had tettfiNjc found to be impracticable. At the time.it may be pointed out that some th«»/iM weeks previously tlie Linwood Council had adopted the report of committee. Clause "f' of section 8 of - -$' that report ran as follows:—"City # ;•£$ "Christchurch, boroughs of _. ■/£ " Albans, and Linwood each to form sepa- ;'.§, "rate wards, 'with representation on tfc*/<*&£. "popular basis," while clause "g" set out '•$ that the Greater Christchuroh Council *if f ". would consist of fourteen Councillors. The ~'t;' proportion of representation had beea fixed in the City Council's scheme at one Conn- jji cillor for every 3000 ol the population, and _'*|? on this basis diristchurcli was allotted six:. C) Cottucillors, Sydenham four, and linwood and St. Albans two It is **'-#]<; claimed that this plan exactly meSU requirements of the population in the 1 ; various municipalities. As Mr said at the meeting of Linwood, ( payers, "on this basis tha cHy would s**&SiSg "one-sixth of a Councillor more "was entitled to, and Linwood would " one-third, of a Councillor less. But &afj||j " the event of Greater Christchurch "ing to and including.Wooteton and "carton, there would be a fresh deal, v "it was quite possible linwood would "a quarter of a Councillor more iß>aa**.lfe.'_ "was entitled to.", Even ,tt»v : M addition of Woolston and Riccarton $|| is'every prospect that before long,' ■ jw*S,*|| bably within two years, tl» population Linwood and St. -Albans may so as to necessitate a readjustment of rejre-' sentaMon." The alteration ol boundaries'.-j|| at the present time troald tmdd&btidly/ias -'-M the Mayor pointed out, lead to wmplkai 4| tions, besides provoking the strenuous -jop- Jfg position of Sydenham. It, is, open to the Linwood Council to alteratlonß to the original scbtms Governor-in-Council, bat they caxm«~ away from the fact tEat Linwood by a large majority to Join Christchurch on the present schems <rf presentation, a fact which woula •" e^ s ||| much weight. They would do well,' think, to let the matter drop now. interests of Linwood act not going, to imperilled because the district is ■&s, mm by one-third of a Councillor, of amount of representation on the of Greater Christchurch. Its mente will receive as full and fair cooail«»t jfjffij tion at tho hands of that Council aS if 'K-J« had three or four representatives., "W|j|jm look to the coming into force of Christchurch to gradually renters ■fKlJjlgj of the little jealousies which bars rather too prominent in the past, absence of these jealousies the | parts of th« city will, wa bars no pull well together for the good of ,*IL - 3gfi|