THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1881. THE FARMERS’ FRIEND (?) DEFEATED.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2191, 4 March 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1881. THE FARMERS’ FRIEND (?) DEFEATED.

Wk took occasion a few days back to refer to a motion tabled by Mr. E. G. Wright for discussion at the Harbour Board, with reference to the reduction of wharfage charges on grain. That motion has since been discussed, and wo are glad to say defeated. It is much to the credit of the Harbor Board, and to the mover of the amendment, that they should have taken so liberal and just a view of the case. Whilst saying this, however, wo cannot help expressing a fear that the Board will find that the revenue on which it mainly depends will bo almost all lost to it. However this may ho, the proposed extension of tho 25 per cent, reduction to various articles as well as grain, cannot but bo of general benefit not alone to the whole community, hut very largely to the farmers themselves. Under Mr. Wright’s proposition, despite what may he said to the contrary, the advantage would have been reaped by the grain buyers and large shippers. But under Mr. Cunningham’s amendment the case stands different. On everything of a character tending to improve his estate, or which is an article of general consumption, the farmer does receive a reduction. On coals, timber, bricks, &c„ all of which are used to a more or loss extent by the farmer, a redaction of 25 per cent, is to be made. Tho proposal to reduce wharfage rates on grain only would, if carried, have benefited but a small section of the community. Tho one accepted by the Board on tho contrary not alone benefits all classes, but farther stimulates local in--1 duatry in the shape of coal and timber. Even granting, for sake of argument, that Mr. Wright’s proposal henefitted the farmer by the one-third of a penny per bushel, still only one class, and that to an almost unappreciable degree, would receive benefit. On the other hand, now not only is the area of tho benefit conferred spread over all classes, but the results springing from it will be felt in a marked degree to the interest of the whole community. Thus, though Mr. Wright’s first appearance in the new role of the farmer’s friend cannot be said to have been a success, there is yet this good arising from it, that, thanks to the members of the Board, the good to be derived will not be confined to any small section of the community, hut distributed equally amongst all. MR. H. ALL WRIGHT ON HIS DIGNITY. Mb. Harry Allwright, M.H.R., in' his place yesterday, at tho Lyttelton Harbour Board, felt called upon to make a personal explanation. Had he been in the other place, where he so worthily represents Lyttelton, he no doubt would have risen to a question of privilege, and probably we should have bad a repetition of the affaire Jones. It must he admitted that Mr. Allwright had great cause for complaint. Ho had been vilified most unjustly, whilst there were attributed to him words of dire import. No doubt, like the hush which fell upon the Pickwick Club when one of the members applied an opprobrious epithet to another, the members of the Harbour Board would have looked aghast had Mr. Allwright used words conveying such Republican, nay Communistic, sentiments, as were falsely attributed to him. Of course our readers have read that fearful sentence, fraught no doubt with dire results, and they therefore know that Mr. Allwright is reported to have said “ That one member of Parliament is as good as another.” No one who knows Mr. Allwright would ever have thought it possible that such sentiments could have been uttered by him. When the happy and contented maritime population over which it is Mr. Allwright’s proud privilege to rule municipally road those words as having fallen from his eloquent lips, a thrill of horror must have pervaded the bosom of each burgess. They, however, strong in their faith in Mr. Allwright, after the first shock of natural dismay had subsided, felt that ho would yet refute the foul slander. And right nobly has he done so. Rising amidst his fellow members with that true dignity which injured innocence alone can impart, he boldly and emphatically refuted the charge of having made use of such revolutionary sentiments. To tho ordinarily constituted mind, perhaps, there is nothing very alarming or astounding in tho assertion that one member of Parliament is as good as another. It smacks very strongly of the invitation, as it were, to combat of two youths, one of whom, to provoke the ire of his antagonist, makes tho remark that he (the speaker) is as good as ho is. But, like Sir Joseph Porter, Mr. Allwright’s mind is one of no common order. He sees lurking beneath the seemingly innocent words a deep, dark and dire conspiracy to heap contumely upon the doubly chosen of Lyttelton, and, like a British sailor, immediately resents it. We can assure Mr. Allwright that he has our profoundest sympathy under this malicious and un-called-for insinuation that ho could utter such sentiments. It is to be hoped that tho offender may ho traced, and that ho may suffer the severest punishment that tho law allows for such a heinous offence, even though it ho that of being brought up before the Mayor of Lyttelton.