Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1889.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 160, 26 July 1889, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1889.

» The great fight; between the country > members and the representatives of the ■* large towns, with their allies, still rages, and seems likely to do so until the clock announces that the Sabbath has arrived, a day of rest that will assuredly be welcome to those engaged in the present struggle. Should there be among the , present obstructionists any who were in ' the Parliament in 1881, they will, perhaps, be able to understand what were the motives that then actuated the little i j band who fought so hard to secure for 1 Nelson what they deemed to be a fair share in the representation of tho colony. The supporters of the Bill now before the House hare spoken tout little, their policy apparently being to leave the talking to the other side. The reason for this was given by Mr Bruce, one of the few of the country party who have spoken, who is reported to have said, in reference to this matter and to the Bill generally, that "he thought the Bill now before them was an effort to place town and country on an equitable basis. Town members had accused country members of using brute force instead of argument, but he had an unpleasant experience of this during last session. If country members had sat silent during this debate, it was because of the self-evident justice of their claims, and he held that the ai'gument of some city members that so many of the town electors would be disfranchised by the Bill was utterly absurd. As a matter of fact, the interest** of town and country were absolutely identical, but members representing cities would not admit that fact. It was well known that a large number bf the shiftless population gravitated to the cities, and there claimed the expenditure of public money, and it could not be denied that 30,000 men iv the city could so combine aa to make their weight felt as much as 40,000 in the country. He did not altogether like the Bill itself, because he thought it gave undue advantage to many of the large boroughs. From a personal standpoint he should regret the passing of this Bill, as he should miBS many of his friends if he came back again to the House ; but still recognised it as an honest attempt to put town and country on an equitable basis." This of course called forth many retorts from the city members, one of whom was unable to place any other construction on Mr Bruce's words than that they were intended to convey that the people in the towns were a lot of dangerous demagogues, and therefore they should be deprived of their political rights ; which, of course, was a very exaggerated interpretation to place upon the words. Mr Bruce was perfectly right in asserting that the city constituencies could make theii* weight felt far more than those in the country, and there is a great deal in what he says about the material of which a considerable portion of the city con» stituencies are formed. It is from the large towns that the cry of the unemployed rises, in tones that can make themselves heard, and it is from the cities that there comes the demand for useless works. Christchurch could tell a tale corroborative of this, for there money was at one time spent with a liberal hand ! upon maintaining men who preferred the comforts of the town to roughing it in the country, and were therefore set to work in scores — ib would almost be safe to say in hundreds — to dear the walks of the public gardens. The Representation Bill of 1887 admitted that a population basis ■ was not to be the only one on which the electorates were to be arranged, and the allowance to the country has now beoome merely one of degree. Those who claim 1 an i-vcrease in the quota are doing so in , tho full conviction that they are demandt ing only what is just, and when all things ara taken into consideration it is hard to find fault with their insistauoe that the remedy they propose shall be adopted.