HAGLEY PARK ROAD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 144, 28 October 1868, Page 3

HAGLEY PARK ROAD.

TO THB EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir, — The arguments used by your correspondent " Tug " on the subject of the Hagley Park road are almost too absurd to notice ; ifc is really ridiculous to find a man claiming any amount of common sense contending that because a direct road from Armagh street to Riccarton can be made, and is the shortest, it ought to be made. The comments in your leader are of the most one-sided character I ever read. I utterly deny that the opponents of this measure are men who fear that they have a paltry benefit to lose by the construction of this road. While on the other hand its advocates have never failed to assert that their object ia a personal one. Now, Sir, let us see what we (the public) are to gain by the expenditure of money in costly bridges over the river afc its crossing in Armagh street, and again by the College, and the construction of a new road measuring at least 65 chains — a road which must be fenced on both sides, and which, when made, cuts the Park into three unsightly angles. The road from the Resident Magistrate's Court, a fair centre, (and which calls persons too frequently to it) measures to Dillo way's by the present road, about 1 10 chains; by the proposed road it would be about 105 chains. From any point south of Cathedral Square, north of Colombo Bridge, it would be no farther to go by one or other of the existing roads, or in any case no greater gain than I have already shewn. You say that it is a sly attack from the Triangle and Cashel street ; be ifc so, although as regards the slyness, your reflections are unbecoming. Nobody claims for that part of the city preeminence ; but those parts, and their immediate surroundings, although so apparently despised, are the centre of the commerce of the city nevertheless. Has your correspondent "Tug," whose sympathies are Armagh street, no personal interest at stake ? Is he, I would ask, one of

those who fancy that something can be gained in the shape of a chance customer for ; the north end of the town to the possible j detriment of his neighbour in Cashel street ? Why, Sir, it is too flagrant an attempt at a job to require your bolstering up in this most unusual manner. What has the City Council to do in this matter ? The Council might (if the rate- [ payers will allow it) construct the bridge across the river from the Market-place, and there the business of the Council ends, for they have nothiug to do with the river at the end of Armagh street, or the park beyond. Will the citizens allow their money to be wasted in such work, in times when every penny required for a rate is to be hardly fought for ; or will the Provincial Council sanction fche construction of so useless and uncalled for a route, when it can be easily shewn that so few, and that so comparatively unimportant a few are benefited by ifc. If the advocates for this encroachment have justice on their side, so would the residents in the North or South Town Belts he justified in asking that a more direct road J should be made through the Park to Dilloway's, and where are such absurd demands to end ? For one, I trust that the Government will not allow itself to be humbugged into making this concession. Party spirit once fostered this movement, and nearly made it successful. But these days have passed away, and we have men now in oflice who think more of the real requirements of the public tban tbeir personal position, and they will doubtless regard the original intentions of the founders of Canterbury in making so valuable a reserve as Hagley Park, and will not allow the covetousness of a few to destroy a place of such unspeakable value to the future of Christchurch. | Your obedient servant, I AN OUTSIDER.