PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 997, 17 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, July 16. The House met at 7 30. the speaker. In the Speaker’s unavoidable absence, Mr Hamlin, Chairman of Committees, took the chair. CHATTELS SECURITIES. Mr Feldwick moved the second reading of the Chattels Securities Bill Agreed to without remark, and on Mr Feldwick’s matinn the Bill was referred to a Select Committee.

gold duty. Mr Seddon moved the second reading of the Gold Duty Abolition Bill. He stated that petitions were in course of being extensively signed in favor of the Bill, and that they would reach Parliament shortly. In the neighboring colonies the tax had been abolished for years. He argued that the yield as a whole, as well as the yield per man, had decreased, and yet no abatement had been' mad* in the duty. This was unfair to a large industrial section of the community. *■ The Hon Mr Rollbston said he regretted he was again in the position of re*, fisting the Bill. In consequence of the 6d remission in the duty made some time ago there had been no o responding rise in the price of gold. The fact was that this further remission, if given effect to, would simply operate, as it had done before, for the benefit of the large speculators. ’ • ■ Mr De Lautour supported the Bill, and suggested that the Department ought to do more than was done to foster the industry, instead ot leaving that to bo done by private members. For exarofple, mining schools should be established, and other means adopted for aiding the miner in his pursuits. The assertion that the money was returned for the benefit of the miners was practically untrue. The fact was that the money was used for opening up the country for the purpose of aiding agricultural pursuits. Mr Fergus commented on the state of the House as evidence of the little‘interest taken in this question. He combated the assertion that if this duty Was abolished it would not secure an appreciable benefit in the rise of the price of gold to the miner. The true policy of commercial prosperity was to keep open as many branches of industrial pursuits as possible. This short-sighted tax had the effect of driving the miner into other pursuits, and to that extent at least the colony was liable to bo impoverished. Mr Shaw also supported the BilL He knew of mines in his district whose gold cost as much as L4O per ounce for taking it out of the ground, and they got only L 3 10s for it. That was the class of cases upon which the tax pressed unfairly, and its effect was to cramp industry and prevent development. This was the only import that partook of the nature of a special tax. It was in no sense of the word a royalty. Mr Fish opposed the Bill, contending that in its effect it would be inoperative in bringing about tha purpose aimed at. Mining to his mind was a losing industry. If the same number of men could be drafted into any other pursuit it would be beneficial, not only to the individual, but likewise to the State.

Mr Mon no supported the principle of the Bill, but commented on the fact that it was merely permissive in its operation. He would rather have seen it made, as was proposed in the previous year, compulsory. Mr Petrie pointed out that last session the Bill for the abolition of this duty had been supported by Mr Pish. He supported the Bill. Mr Fitz Gerald also supported the Bill, but had he been consulted about its passing he would have suggested a gradual abolition —say a shilling reduction this year, and a further reduction next year, until the whole amount had been repealed. ■ * Mr Sheehan said they had heard the same old arguments to-night that they had listened to so often. The provisions of the Bill had been argued purely from- a Southern goldfields point of view.- In the North the miners’ rights were paid to the Natives, and all that the local bodiesgot was the duty. He got the permissive clause inserted into the Bill last yeaf purely on that account, and the mover of the motion would have to giya him a guarantee that he would abide by that clause before he would consent to vote for the Bill.

Mr Donoan and Mr J. 0. Brown supported the Bill. ■ _ Mr Seddon replied—He would maintain the Bill ir its permissive features. He would ask that the Bill be read a second time and referred to the Goldfields Committee, so as to afford time for the petitions now being got up in its favor reaching Parliament. The House divided—Ayes. 21; Noes, 17.

The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Goldfields Committee. The House rose at 10.10.