THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFEAT AND ITS SEQUEL.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1448, 7 October 1878, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFEAT AND ITS SEQUEL.

[By Tblbgeaph.] [FEOJI SPECIAL KEPOETEE OF PEESS.] MR JOHNSTON’S AMENDMENT. At half past twelve on Thursday, Mr Stout moved the second reading of the Beer Duty Bill. He said as the whole question had been discussed, it was unnecessary to make a speech. Mr Johnston then rose and moved as an amendment —‘‘That inasmuch as the present proposals contained in the Beer Duty Bill and Joint Stock Companies Bill are impolitic, and impose exceptional taxation upon the working classes, the Beer Duty Bill be road a second time that day six months.” The AttorneyGeneral had made no speech, but looked round the House as if to challenge any one to move an amendment. He disapproved of the Government’s financial proposals because they would not touch the pockets of the wealthy classes. Returns showed that fifteen millions were invested in mortgages in the colony, but the money-lenders who held the title deeds would be exempted from taxation by the Government proposals. And yet the Ministry pretended that their financial policy was intended to make the monied class contribute more largely to the revenue! While doing this they proposed to tax the working-man’s beer to the extent of £40,000. That was not what the House contemplated by its resolutions respecting the necessity for a change in the incidence of taxation passed last year. The Treasurer gave no reason whatever for putting such a large tax upon the workingman ; but the Treasurer admitted in the financial statement that they would fall upon the consumers. Thus he would tax to the extent of £200,000 a year to benefit the revenue to the extent of £40,000. The tax would be a class-tax upon the working-man. Another Bill, to which he would allude — The Attorney-General asked the Speaker ’s ruling, whether Mr Johnston was in order in discussing another Bill ? The Speaker said it was understood that the whole financial measures would be discussed together. Therefore he would not interrupt the member for Manawatu. This Bill opened up the whole question of finance. Mr Johnston continued —In the Joint Stock Companies Bill, the Government would tax such companies as the New Zealand Shipping, which was not started for the mere sake of dividends, but to facilitate trade, develop the resources of the country, and retain in the country large sums which would otherwise be sent away. The Bill would tax struggling coal companies, developing the mineral resources of the colony at the very moment when they were about to reap some reward for their investments. It would also tax district railway associations. Mr Pyke—May I ask what is before the House ?

The Speaker—The question is the second reading of the Beer Duty Bill. It was understood that all four financial Bills should be taken as a whole. I cannot interrupt the hon. member.

Mr Johnston resumed—He was certain that when the question was put to the country, whether instead of a remission of £IOO,OOO on tea and sugar the colony should not have borrowed another two millions for Public Works, on which £IOO,OOO would be paid iu interest, the country would say the Government had acted unwisely. The Joint Stock Companies Duty Bill would tax insurance companies and raise premiums. The Beer Bill woxdd tax what was almost exclusively used by working men, and would tax industries in the teeth of the resolutions passed last session. No other member speaking, the Speaker proceeded to put the question that tho words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. The words were declared struck out on the voices.

Mr George called for a division, when tho House divided, the ayes being 28 and the noes 30. This virtually affirmed the amendment by leaving out all the words after “ that ” in Mr Stout’s motion for the second reading. THE DISPUTED PAIRS. Immediately after tho division on the Beer Duty Bill, it was evident the Government had been taken by surprise, Mr Smut looked serious and Mr Sheehan savage. The Opposition cheered, and Messrs Fox, Atkinson, Ormond, and others appeared jubilant. The Attorney-General said some members of the House had broken their pairs, and in order to give time to bring up the absent Government supporters whoso pairs had been broken by members who voted on the other side, ho would move that instead of “ this day six months ” the word “to-morrow” be inserted. The members who had broken their pairs were Major Atkinson, Messrs MurrayAynsley and Hursthouse. [Mr Hursthouse — “Oh.”] Major Atkinson—l should like to ask the hon. gentleman for his authority for the statement that I broke my pair. Mr Stout —The hon. member for Tuapeka (Mr J. C. Brown). Major Atkinson said Mr Brown brought Mr Carrington to him and said “ I have been all round the House and cannot get a pair for Mr Carrington, who is very ill.” Ho (Major Atkinson) said—“ To oblige you I will do it. Mind! My pair is only for the Land Tax Bill.” MrCarrington said “ yes.” The member for Tuapeka then told Mr Carrington in his (Major Atkinson’s) presence that the pair was only for the Land Tax Bill. The Government would thus see what their authority was worth. He called on Messrs Sharp and Wool cock to corroborate his statement. Ho could add that he took the paper to Mr Brown with the pairs marked on it.

Mr Woolcock said he was not only present at the time but took part in the conversation. Major Atkinson was strictly correct. He (Mr Woolcock) was supporting the Bill and therefore had no objection. Mr Sharp had overheard the conversation, and Major Atkinson was correct. The latter also said, “You must remember if I can change the pair lam at liberty to do so. Mr Brown said, “ What about the Boer Bill ? ” Mr Carringtoa replied, “ I do not care about tho Beer Bill.” Mr O’Rorke said that ten minutes before the division Nr Dignan told him he had paired with Mr Bastings, and went away live minutes before die division with that understanding. Yet Mr Bastings voted with the noes.

Mr Bastings —Vliat he Ims stated is perfectly correct. I vas going out of the House intending not to v«te, when Mr Sharp assured me that Mr Digian had paired with Mr Richmond. [Laugiter,] On that assurance I remained. Wo all ippoar to have blundered. Mr Hamlin is registered there as pairing with Mr Reeves, and Mr Hamlin voted with the Government, though Vlr Reeves was absent. The Speaker—l amloth to stop the debate, but the House takes nt cognisance of pairs. Mr Sharp—The pars were given to mo. Mr Richmond said he was going away, and wanted to get a pair. I asked Mr Dignan, who said ho would pair, and they wont away together. . Mr Murrny-Aynsley —lonly paired on the Land Tax Bill, and who the division was taken on that Bill I walkedaut, as Mr Wason told me I was paired with Mr Green. Mr Wason corroborated tin last speaker. The Attorney-General should be m oro careful in making such scandalous chargo.

Mr Hursthouse —I repudiate the charge of breaking my pair. The member for Marsden (Sir R. Douglas) came to me and said Mr Tole was seriously ill, and I gave my pair on the distinct understanding that it was only on the Land Tax Bill. Mr Turnbull—l rise to explain that it was by misconception I voted with the Government. I intended to vote against the Bill. Sir R. Douglas—What Mr Hursthouse has said is perfectly correct. Mr Stout —I can only say the Government has been very badly treated. [Oh, oh.] I find no mention of the Land Tax Bill in the pairs which I hold in my hands, but they arc treated as pairs for the evening, and I find the names of both whips signed as treating them so. They could not expect them to be treated as pairs on the Land Tax Bill. Mr Fox —Oh, oh, Mr Stout —I cannot expect the hon. member to keep quiet on the question of beer. Mr Fox—ls the hon. member making a personal explanation ? Mr Stout —No, I am making a speech. The Speaker Other members made speeches on the plea of personal explanation, therefore the Attorney-General must be allowed to proceed. Mr Stout proceeded to speak on the amendment.

Mr Murray moved the adjournment. Mr Ormond said he had no objection to the adjournment, if the Government required time to consider their position. The adjournment was agreed to on the voices. The House rose at 12.55. SPEECHES ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GOVERNMENT BILLS. The following speeches were delivered on the withdrawal of the Government Bills : Mr Wakefield said it would have been absurd for the Government to dissolve on such a question. A few days ago the Treasurer came down to the House and in a most defiant manner said that the Government would stand or fall by their financial policy. [Mr Ballance—No.] He (Mr Wakefield) feared that the events of the last two days had so affected the Treasurer that he could not remember what he had said a few days ago. He quite sympathised with him in his present position. He dared to say the Treasurer sat up lata last night, discussing whether the Ministry should resign, go to the country, or turn up' the Bills. The Native Minister looked as cheery os if he had had a good night’s rest. He (Mr Wakefield) had no desire to see the Government turned out of office, and he did not think under the present circumstances any good would result from it. He hoped when the Government came down with proposals to make up the deficiency in the revenue caused by the withdrawal of the two Bills, they would bring down something in the shape of a property tax. He did not desire to strike a fallen foe, and was not treating the Government as a foe. His feeling with regard to the circumstances of the last few days was one of regret, and he hoped the hon. member for Manawatu would see his way to withdraw his motion.

Mr Bowen said he would venture to give some advice, which would be as charitable as the advice the Government were receiving from their professed friends. The Government had stated that they would propose a new scheme of taxation to the House and the country. They had given up one which was included in the four Bills. It was obvious that Ministers had not consulted, and, in order to mature another policy, they would require at least four or five days. But there was yet time to cure, in another place, the mistake they had made here. He would suggest that the Colonial Secretary should withdraw, in the Council, the other two financial Bills, which would render their policy complete. [Great laughter.] That was a perfectly logical suggestion. The Government could withdraw those Bills and then come down and pass the estimates, lie was sure the Opposition would allow them to do this. They could then go home, and the Government would have all the recess to mature fresh financial proposals. That would bo better for the Government and for the country. The Government would be considering the interest of the country if they would condescend to accept that advice. Mr Wason, in replying *o Mr Hamlin, said it was extremely gratifying to find that the hon. member was refreshed. The member for Frankiyn had accused him and the hon. member for Egmont of riotous living in connection with their political conduct. Well he (Mr Wason) had been accused of many things in his life before, but not of riotous living. [Laughter.] If the House would look at the hon. member for Egmont and the member for Frankiyn they would see which was most likely to indulge in riotous living. [Mr Hamlin is a burly red-faced man of bucolic exterior.] He (Mr Wason) had accused the Government, in the debate on the Land Tax Bill, of not intending to proceed with these two Bills, and that had been verified by the result. The House had inflicted great wrong upon the country in allowing the Land Tax Bill to pass in its present shape. Mr Bryce confessed to very great surprise at hearing the statement of the Premier, After all the House had been told about these three measures—the Land Tax Bill, the Beer Tax Bill, and the Joint Stock Companies Tax Bill—being a part of and a necessary part of the Government policy as a whole. [Hear.] After the statement of the Premier, respect for the word of a Minister must be altogether destroyed. [Hear, hear.] He thought at least regard for truth and honor ought to have prevented the abandoning of their measures after having led the House to believe by direct statements that the Bills would be pushed on to the end. [Hear, hear.] The Premier had spoken about the party being adverse to these two Bills, and wishing them to be wilhdrawn. He did not believe that to be true. It might bo true respecting a section of the party, eras regarded the brewing and other interests ; but it was not in any sense true as regards the party as a whole, lie should not speak on the Bill, but ho would say this, that he was quite at a loss to find proper words in which to express his sentiments on the subject of its withdrawal. He had felt the greatest possible astonishment at the announcement. If it had been made after a successful division, he , should still have been astonished ; but his astonishment was greatly increased when he recollected that on the previous night the Government had suffered a defeat on the Bill, and that it was in view of that defeat they were now withdrawing tho measure. [Hear, hear.] He should say no more ; but whose word were members of the House to depend upon if not upon that of Ministers, when they said that these Bills were to be regarded as part of the Government policy, and that the Government would stand or fall by them H [Hear, hear.] On what could the House depend after that ? [Hear, hear.] Major Atkinson said he did not desire to prolong the debate. It must be a matter of satisfaction to the Attorney-General that certain members of the Opposition had not acted in the manner he attempted to show with regard to pairs. It would be more satisfactory to the House, when they found that the Attorney-General had wrongly accused members, if he had got up in his place and admitted his error. He (Major Atkinson) wished for the sake of the Government that it was halfpast five, so that they might retire to solitude and consider the most unfortunate position they were in. Ho did not envy them the Cabinet meetings they would have between then and Monday, especially when he considered the firm stand they had formerly taken up in the House. Their defeat had been caused by inordinate conceit, and the hon. gentleman at the head of tho Government had been noted for a display of that all his life. The inordinate conceit of the Premier and his colleagues had led them to believe that, without possessing a knowledge of tho requirements of the country, whatever proposals they had evolved out of their own inner consciousness, would bo accepted by a majority of the House, and to a great extent the belief had been borne out. Members, to the number of from thirty to thirty-five, had got up in the House and said tho Bills would operate unfairly between the rich and the poor, but. had said they would vote for the Bills because it was such a very excellent Government—was entirely above the suspicion of wanting to cling to office, that being about the last thing they would think of, He hoped they would

not put the country to the expense of a resignation. they could believe _ the Ministerial statements upon those questions, ho would feel quite easy in his mind. But there was no saying that what they declared to bo their intention on one day they might not ignore on the next. Therefore, he wished to add Ids little mite to reassuring Ministers, and not to put them out of office on such a paltry matter as tin's. The Opposition were not going to bring down a no confidence motion. They did not want to turn the Government out. He might go further and console them by saying that, even if a no confidence motion were tabled, he was not sure that he would vote for it. He hoped the Government would take his advice, pocket the affront, and remain in office. The Premier and the Native Minister had distinctly stated that they would accept amendments from their friends, but never from their enemies. Had they accepted this defeat from their opponents, or from their friends ? Was the hon. member for Manawatu a friend of the Government. [Mr Stout— No. Ho will not carry his amendment.] The Government had the wisdom of the serpent to wriggle out of their position. The Opposition wore prepared to make a golden bridge for the flying enemy to retreat over. He hoped the member for Manawatu would see his way to withdraw his amendment. No doubt he would feel that the resignation of the Ministry would be a great loss to the country. The Attorney-General has said the beer tax was an insignificant thing, and therefore they could give it up, and they wished the House to believe that they gave it up because of the action of their friends, whereas they had been compelled to adopt their present course from the action of the Opposition. The Government, from the high pinnacle which they occupied, had not thought it necessary to consult their friends as a whole, and they supposed that they had only to say they were going to do this or that, and the majority would vote for it, whether right or wrong. The Government had been absolutely unsparing in the terrorism they had exercised over their friends, and had endeavoured to manage their opponents in the same way, but without success. Major Atkinson went on to say—We ore prepared to meet them in the country, whenever the hon. gentleman likes to make an appeal to the country. If they are prepared to go to the country upon this, let us be off about our business. Let us go to the country and see whether the country wants this Beer Tax Bill. The Treasurer said —“ You must deal with these Bills as a fiscal whole, that is to say, as the policy of the Government, and perhaps, looking at the course of the debate, it would have been better if all our financial proposals had been embodied in one measure. All our proposals are intimately connected with each other. If you take away £30,000 in one place yov must make it up in another. I will accept any division that takes place as a test on the whole of our financial measures, but I hope hon gentlemen will not think that having voted for the second reading they are at liberty to eviscerate our Bills in committee.” If ever there was a claim made by any Government to have their measures considered as a whole, that claim was put forward in the speech of the Colonial Treasurer. Two of the Bills, which embodied cardinal principles of the Government policy, had been withdrawn in consequence of the action of the Opposition, with the strong concurrence of the friends of the Government. The member for City West had actually stated in the House that he was going to vote for a measure which he believed would do injustice to the country, because the Government had called upon him to do it. He did not desire to obstruct the Government. Let them retain their seats, and members get home to their business as soon as possible.