The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1894.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 10482, 20 October 1894, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY , OCTOBER 20, 1894.

The New Zealand Times has published an interesting article on the defeat of the Midland Eailway Bill. Our Wellington contemporary is, we are glad to see, broad-minded enough to honestly condemn the hostile majority of the House of Eepresentatives. It does not mince matters at all, but points out that it is impossible to expect that the people o£ Canterbury and Westland will tamely put up with the loss of their railway. It sees danger ahead in the shape of a strong combination between tho larger provinces of the colony in favour of another big loau and a progressive public works policy. Our contemporary comes to this conclusion after a careful analysis of the division list on the Midland Eailway Bill. It points out that the forces hostile to the Bill were almost entirely recruited from the Auckland and Wellington supporters of the North Island trunk line, and from Otago members anxious for the pushing on of the Otago Central Eailway. In this the Times thinks it perceives the keynote of the position. It is, apparently, unable to conceive that the House of Representatives should deliberately destroy all prospect of getting tho Midland Eailway without some distinct object. That object it believes to be a grand log-rolling and borrowing policy in which Canterbury and Otago shall join hands with Auckland and Wellington to force on a three million loan to complete the railway system of the colony. We take this notice of the Times article because we know that the opinions it expresses are those of a number of shrewd observers of the

we think the apprehension o£ the speedy promotion of a great loan is premature. We are disposed to think that there is no need to look very far for the hidden motives for the rejection of the Midland Railway Bill. We are convinced that they lie on the surface. First of all, there is the strong opposition to the Midland Railway which has always existed, and which, though partly honest, has been fanned and fed by provincial jealousies. Next, there is the increasing impatience of the financial weakness of the Midland Com-1 pany, and of its repeated requests for further variations of its contract. Then there is a not unimportant factor in the shape of the intense animosity shown to the company by Sir Robert Stout since his return to Parliament. More important far than this last is the defection of the Nelson and Marlborough contingent, and the hostility shown to the Bill by three of the South Canterbury members. The attitude of these gentlemen turned the scale. Messrs Graham, Mills, Buick, Hall-Jones and Maslin voted against the Bill, and Messrs R. M’Kenzio and Flatman did not vote at all. Had the Nelson, Marlborough and South Canterbury members supported the proposal it would have been carried. No one wassurprisedatthechangeof front made by the Nelson and Marlborough members, hut the opposition from South Canterbury is not so natural. But for the reasons we have just mentioned the Midland Railway Company has undoubtedly become anything hut popular in the House, and we have ground for believing that nothing but the personal exertions of Mr Seddon and some of his colleagues prevented the majority against the Bill being larger. Quite a number of the friends of the Government walked out when the division hell rang rather than vote against the measure. Irritating and injurious as the final result has been to this province, we should be sorry to see Canterbury drawn into an agitation for a threemillion railway loan. That would indeed he a heavy price to pay for even the Midland Railway. Moreover, we have more trust in the good sense of the people of New Zealand than to believe that they have any wish just now to rush hastily to London to mortgage the colony’s credit up to the lips, The injustice to this province inflicted by the vote of Tuesday night can be and should be remedied by other and more reasonable and less costly steps, and we shall look both to the Government and our representatives to see that those are taken, and that the just claims of this part of New Zealand are not contemptuously disregarded. Canterbury certainly cannot afford to continue contributing to the colony’s revenue without sharing in its expenditure.