PARLIAMENTARY.

Kumara Times, Issue 3023, 12 July 1886, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

THE REJECTION OF THE GOLD DUTY ABOLITION BILL. ACTION op GOLDFIELDS MEMBERS. ♦ [from our own correspondent.] Wellington, July 10. The Gold Duly Abolition question is still exercising the minds of hon. members, and the action of the Legislative Council in throwing out the bill is universally condemned. The Wellington Evening Post, in a leading article, referred to Dr. Pollen as a State pensioner, and said, in the face of the Kimberley rush, the Legislative Council bad struck a blow at the industry. In the House, Mr Pyke had on the Order Paper a notice of motion “To call the attention of the House to a question of privilege in relation to the rejection of the tax and the remission of bills by the Legislative Council.” He found, however, that, in accordance with the practice of the Imperial Parliament, he must first move for a committee to inquire what bad been done with the bill in the Legislative Council. He moved, therefore, for a committee to be appointed to inspect the journals df the Legislative Council in relation to the proceedings in regard to the Gold Abolition Duty Bill, and to report to the House; the Committee to consist of Sir R. Stout, Sir Geo. Grey, Major Atkinson, Messrs Larnach, Ormond, Fergus, Bryce, and the mover. He also moved for a message to be sent to the Council, asking that the Council would allow the journals to be inspected. The Premier thought they could not deal with the question then, since a bill'had been introduced dealing with the question, and he moved that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday, in order that the course the House should adopt might be considered. Mr Brown (who had introduced the second bill] said he would be quite willing to withdraw the bill. The Speaker said that could not be done until the bill came up for its second reading. Mr Pyke pointed out that the second bill was not the same as that thrown out by the Council. He hoped the Premier would withdraw his motion. The Premier said be could not withdraw the motion until he had had time to consider the matter. Mr Seddon suggested that the matter be adjourned till that evening. He pointed out that the next day was appointed for a deputation to meet the Government in relation to this matter. It had been said—he did not know how true it was—that Government agreed with the action of the Council, and these motions for adjournment gave a colouring to those rumours. Further, the Bill was thrown out by a majority of one, and a Minister of the Crown who was in the buildiugs at the time, did not vote. In the course of a discussion which ensued, Mr Guinness asked the ruling of the Speaker on the new bill as relating to the present question. The Speaker said he was not aware of the nature of Mr Brown’s bill, and could not express an opinion on the matter. DEPUTATION. A deputation waited on the Premier and Minister of Mines this morning. There were present Messrs Fraser, Seddon, Guinness, Cowan, O’Conor, Brown, Bevan, Grace, Menteath, and Pyke. After considerable discussion, the following proposals were submitted : By the Premier—That 3d per oz. per annum be taken off until the duty be aoblished. By Mr O’Conor—That fid per oz. be taken off at once, leaving the duty Is fid. Mr J. C. Brown—That Is per oz. be taken off on the 31st March next. By Mr Seddon—That fid per oz, be taken off on the Ist October next, and fid per oz. on the Ist October, 1887, leaving the duty at Is after that date; the duty to be in lieu of any rales or taxes. Mr Seddon’s suggestion was adopted by all present, except Mr O’Conor, he only objecting, on the ground that the Legislative Council would not agree to take off one shilling in twelve months, whilst they might agree to sixpence. The Premier promised to put the views by the members before the Cabinet, and on the Cabinet deciding, he would send a written answer. ° Ihe deputation thanked the Minister, and withdrew.