PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5438, 31 August 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, August 30. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at 2.30. REPORTS. The Hon. Col. BRETT brought up the report of the sehet committee on theEencing Bill. It recommended the passing of the measure. Col. Brett also brought up a report from the Petitions Committee on the petition of Mr. John Jeffsou. The committee was of opinion that the charges had not been sustained, and that petitioner was not entitled to compensation. Some returns were laid on the table by lha Colonial Secretary. The report of the Sheep Bill Committee was brought up. It recommended that the BUI should be passed as sent back by them. The report spoke strongly of the bad drafting of the Bill. The Hon, Major RICHMOND brought up a report on the Gatlins River Bill, which recommended that the measure should be proceeded with. MONDAY SITTING. The Hon. Col. WHITMORE desired to take the sense of the Council as to sitting on Monday. Seeing that tbe financial policy of the Government would be discussed in another place this evening, he did not like to ask the Council to have an evening sitting. Later on it was decided not to sit on Monday, but to have an evening sitting. THE EATING ACT, 1876. This Bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Tuesday next. COUNTIES ACT AMENDMENT, This measure was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Tuesday next. jackson’s bat settlement. The Hon. Captain ERASER moved, — That, in the opinion of this Council, all Government expenditure on the Jackson’s Bay Settlement should cease. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE did not know what steps the Government would eventually take, but a searching enquiry would be made. The motion was agreed to. mabtin annuity bill. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE in a few words moved the second reading. He hoped the Bill would be read with the same unanimity as in the other Chamber. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS did not think he would be doing his duty if he did not call attention to the inadvisableness of such a precedent as altering a Pension Act. He would not oppose the Bill, but he must protest against such Bills being introduced into the Legislature. If the Government stretched a point at all this was a proper case in which to do so, but the precedent was a bad one. The Hon. Mr, HALL was exceedingly sorry that Mr, Reynolds had not followed the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary, and allowed the Bill to pass with unanimity. He spoke of the eminent merits of Sir William Martin. He believed that the measure did credit to the Government and the Parliament, The Hou: Mr. WATERHOUSE rose to warmly support the BilL—The Hon, Sir Dillon Bell congratulated the Government on being the means of remedying an injustice in this case. —The Hon. ColonelKENNYfollowed in the same strain. The Bill was then read a second time. DANGEROUS GOODS ACT AMENDMENT. This Bill was read a second time, and its committal fixed for Tuesday next. JURIES ACT AMENDMENT. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE moved the second reading, shortly explaining the provisions of the Bill. He would have some amendments to propose. One was to do away with the exemption of militia officers. He had had a great many applications to be appointed to the militia, which he did not understand until he saw the claims for exemption made. It was proposed to exempt bank managers from sitting on special juries for several reasons. The Hon. Dr. MENZIES would like to see a provision introduced to make it possible to take the verdict of a majority of the jury, at all events in civil cases. Motion agreed to. ; CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The second reading was moved by the Hon. Colonel Whitmore, The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE had no objection to the general principle of the measure, but the clause referring to provincial officers went much further than he thought was intended by the Government, It would prevent provincial officers from getting compensation, even if they were in the General Government service for the next twenty years. Officers taken over from the Provincial to the General Government service should be placed in the same position as if they had originally been in the General Government service. The Hons. Sir D. Bell and Mr. Hall having spoken briefly on the Bill, Colonel Whitmore replied, and the Bill was read a second time. OPENING OF THE CHRISTCHNRCH AND DUNEDIN RAILWAY. The Hon. the SPEAKER read a telegram from the Mayor of Dunedin inviting him andthe members of the Council to a banquet afc Dunedin on the 7th September, on the occasion of the opening of the Dune Un and Christchurch railway. He informed hon. members that he had replied to the effect that several members of the Council would be present. The Council then went into committee. HOUSE OR REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, August 30. The Speaker took the chair at 2 30 p.m. PETITIONS, NOTICES, AND REPORTS. Several petitions were presented, notices of motion given, and reports of committees brought up. PAPERS. The Hon, Mr. BALLANCE laid on the table correspondence with reference to the Consolidation of Stock Act. ! GRAND JURIES i In reply to Mr. Wood, The Hon. Mr. STOUT said the Government did not intend to introduce a Bill to do away with Grand Juries in New Zealand, REEFTON HALWAYS. In answer to Mr. Woolcock, The Hon. Mr. MAO ANDREW said the Government had no objection to cause a survey of a line of railway between the nearest available point of the Brunnerton-Amberley line to Reefton, if there was any prospect of the construction of the line being undertaken by private enterprise under the District Railways Act. * FOXHTLL AND HAMPDEN MAIL SERVICES. The Hon. Mr. FISHER, in answer to Mr. Reeves, said the Government would have no objection to establish the above service if sufficient inducement was held out. BEETROOT SUGAR. Mr. SUTTON asked the Government, — Whether the Agent-General has been advised by cablegram that the Government propose to reduce the duty on sugar ? (2.} If such information has not already been sent to the Agent-General, whether he will be instructed forthwith to notify to persons interested in the production of beet sugar that the proposed alteration may make a reconsideration of the question advisable. (3.) Whether the notification, as published in the Gazette of 15th August, promising a bonus of £SOOO for each island, on the production of 500 tons beet sugar, has been withdrawn ? . The Hon. Mr. BALLANCE replied in the affirmative as to the first part of the question. As to the other part, the bonus had not been withdrawn. THE CENSUS. In reply to Mr. Thomson, The Hon. Mr. BALLANCE said some of the census returns could not be presented till next session, but some of the moat important results would be in the hands of hon. members shortly, the press of work at the Government Printing Office having prevented their earlier, publication. NEW BILLS. The following new Bills were introduced and read a first time Bill to constitute a Road and River Board for Inch Clutha, Bill to constitute and endow a Harbor Board at Gatlin’s River, Wangarei Harbor, Gisborne Harbor, Hick’s Bay Harbor, Opotiki Harbor, Matata Harbor, Whakatane Harbor, and Katikati Harbor Endowment Bills. ADMINISTRATION BILL. This Bill was further considered in committee, reported, and consideration of the report made an order of the day for Monday. DISQUALIFICATION BILL (NO. 2). The Hon. Mr, STOUO\ in moving the second reading of the BUI, said its main object was to consolidate and make more plain the law at present existing. It prohibited civil servants and contractors from holding seats in either House of the Legislature. ' A contractor was declared to be a person who either by himself or by others entered into a contract involving an amount exceeding £6O with tbe Government, excepting members of joint stock companies. A “ civil servant” to mean any person in the Civil Service of the colony except Executive Councillors. Iu this connection he might mention that a Bill had been sent down from the other Chamber providing for a second Executive Councillor, to assist tbe member of tbe Government in

that Chamber. One member was not able to conduct the business of the Government in that Chamber, and it was proposed to revert to the practice which had always obtained in the past except when the Hon. Hr. Pollen held the office. He believed that Bill was not in order, in that it had been originated in the other Chamber, If this Disqualification Bill were passed the other Bill could be dropped. Mr. MoLEAN said the Bill should have been denominated “a'Bill to purify the Parliament, and to indemnify certain members of the Executive Council, ” for its main object wan, an set out in the 9th clause, to get Ministers out of the mess they had got into by their conduct last session. The Attorney-General should have come down fairly, and the Opposition would have shown him how a Government should be treated. They would not have been treated as the previous Ministers had been. Mr. BARTON made a fierce onslaught on the principle of the Bill generally. The disqualification law hitherto had played into the hands of the runholdera in Parliament, who had by extending the terms of their leases at a low rent enriched themselves at the expense of the country. He knew further, that the avenues of justice had been closed to the best men in the country by the Disqualification Act, and the Attorney-Generalship had been filled by a permanently paid clerk, owing to the desire in the past to keen lawyers out of the House. The Bench of New Zealand was at present filled by “books in breeches,” in consequence of the action of the past, and in consequence of the English mode of raising Judges to the Bench of the colony not having been followed. He denounced the Bill as puritanical and savoring of mock parity, while it perpetuated real imparity. It prevented poor men who had served their country for years being suitably rewarded, while it enabled runholders to line their pockets thoroughly well at the expense of the public. He proceeded to enlarge on this point in a highly excited manner, evidently alluding to the Canterbury runholdeders, till Mr. KOLLESTON rose to a point of order. Had the hon. member a right to cast such reflections in the House.

The SPEAKER said the conduct of the hon. member was exceedingly indecorous, and in very bad taste. Mr. BARTON had not intended to be offensive to the House, but he could not help saying the House had degenerated into a bulwark of safety for a certain class, and he should oppose the Bill as tending to perpetuate that sort of thing, and to play into the hands of the rich. Men came into that House to serve their personal interest. They could well afford to do without pay, seeing they drew such largo incomes from the runs in thepossession of which they were confirmed by their own votes. Like a boy who would take no wages because he could do very well on what he could pick up on his master’s estate, these hon. members came into the House to pick up what they could get, (Ironical cheers.) The Hon. Mr. desired to see the words " civil servant ” so interpreted that it would include the cases of persons to whom, tmder the present arrangement, large sums of money might be paid by Government without their being pub into the Civil Service. They might pay a man commission and not salary. He hoped that would he amended. Mr. KELLY approved of the Bill, considering it an improvement on the Act of 1876. The Hon. Mr. STOUT, in replying, said he had no fear as to the position of the Ministry. Ho had been very careful when taking office himself to assume simultaneously the offices of Executive Councillor and Attorney-General, so there could be no doubt as to bis As to the other members of the Ministry said to be affected, he believed the saving clause as to members of Provincial Executives would cover everything. The Bill was read a second time. A discussion arose on. the proposal of the Government to commit the Bill at once.

Mr. BARFF opposed it atrongly, and spoke on what he conceived to be the unfair operation of clause six disqualifying members of the House becoming civi- servantsfortwelvemonfchs after they ceased to be members. He said that provision had been enacted in 1876 for the purpose of gratifying personal spite and preventinf' a gentleman who was at that tune and still’ remained a member of the House from accepting a position in the Civil Service. The only qualification for admission into the Civil Service was the ability to carry a short stick in an aristocratic manner, and to say ts haw, haw,” while persons who had been, in public life for years were shut out from any re ward for their services.

The Bill was then committed* # The definition of the word civil servant was widened so as to embrace any person who was appointed even temporarily to any office the salary of which was to be paid from the revenues of the colony, and to the exceptions were added membership of any harbor board, xiver board, road board, county, &c., and Commission, provided the sum to be paid was not larger than usual Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS- moved an amendment neutralising the effect of clause 6, winch disqualified members of the Legislature accepting any appointment until twelve months after he ceased to be a member. The amendment was lost by 56 to 19. The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m. Progress was immediately reported, with leave to sit again on Monday next. LASB TAX BILL. The Hod. Mr. BALLANUB was loudly cheered on rising to move the second reading of this BUL The hon. member said that as it was intended now to proceed with the discussion on the policy of the Government, he would pass in review the various measures which the Government proposed. The colozualisation of the Land Fund last session had placed financial matters in a different position to that in which they would have stood under other circumstances. Although there was an apparent gain of only £91,000, still there was an indirect gain of a very considerable amount. But for the coloniaUsafcion of the Land Fund, the Government would have had to provide for a deficiency in various provincial districts amounting to £187,800. Had this been necessary, the Government would have had to come down to the House and ask it to impose further taxation on the country, apn d they wonld also have been unable to propose any remission of the taxation already existing. Xt was in Auckland that the Hon. the Premier had sounded the note for a change in the Incidence of taxation. There was discontent in the country, and the Government, considering there was justice in the cry, determined to give the ques 1 ion fair consideration. A great deal of opposition was raised against the proposal to give a free breakfast-table. It was contended that the circumstances of this colony were so different to those of the old country that the working man could well afford to bear the burdens that were imposed upon him. . The Government did not think that the working man should be exempted from paying his fair share of taxation, but they considered that he was bearing more than his fair share, and therefore it was that they proposed to diminish the taxation that was imposed on some of the most common necessaries of life. In Hew Zealand the Government found that the taxation on tea and sugar was far higher than it was in the other colonies. In the other colonies, the duty on tea was 3d. a pound; in Now Zealand it was 6d, a pound, or exactly double; and while sugar was sold in Victoria and South Australia at 3s. fid. per bag, In New Zealand it was sold at 9s. 4d. Therefore the Government thought it would only be fair to make the reductions on these two articles of < consumption they had shadowed forth in the Financial Statement. Coming next to the land tax, this was a matter which required even a greater amount of consideration still. Last session the hon. member for Akaroa very properly remarked that tho land had been very jnucb increased in value, and that landowners t'lpuld therefore well afford to pay a tax upon Ik Xq dealing with this question, it was well to consider how far the imposition of a tax would interfere with individual industry. Under thfl system that hitherto prevailed, the industrious man who improved his property was made to pay heavy rates, while the man who did not improve it was not taxed to the same extent, tliough the extent of his property might be equal. The main feature which ran through the present proposals of the Government was, that instead of taxing a man according to the value which was given to his land by his own industry, he would be called upon to pay in accordance with the increased value which , had been given to hia property by the industry of others. Ihe 'Government proposals did not go tho lengtn to -which Mr. John Stuart Mill went,- Mr. Mill considered that the State had a perfect right to take the whole of the increased value diem time to time aa it accrued. Tho Government proposals did not go so far as this, because the Government thought it would interfere with the industry of the country. They proposed merely to take a portion of tho improved value of tho land, the portion which -was specified in the lA.ot; and the question was whether that amount was too burdensome. "He thought not. It was argued against the imposition of a land tax that it would press un -.fairly on the rural districts, to the advantage of

the towns. He did not for a moment believe that this would be the case. Let the House look to the case of the Duke of Westminster, who was reputed to be the wealthiest man m the world. A great deal of that nobleman’s wealth was to be attributed to the increased value of the land he owned in the city of London—not to the buildings that were placed upon it, but to the improved value of the land itself through the pressure of population. The same thing was occurring with regard to property in every centre of population in New Zealand, and this fact was sufficient in itself to show that the imposition of this tax would not press unfairly on the country districts. He considered it to be a tax that was alike fair, moderate, and just. Having said so much on this part of the Government proposals, he would now refer to another kind of taxation that seemed to be regarded favorably by some hon. members of the House, It was said by some hon. members that they should have au allround fax. (Hear, hear, from Mr. J. E. Brown) What was meant by an all round tax was in force in the United States of America, where personal property was taxed ; a man who bought a watch had to pay a tax on it, and so on in regard to all property of a personal description. It was obvious, however, that such a system of taxation would not be acceptable to this country. Reverting to the question of the land tax, the Government thought that the exemption from taxation of property under the value of £SOO was a wise one, because struggling men, or those making a beginning as property owners, would not be interfered with, or their industry crippled in the slightest degree. But the Government thought that those joint-stock companies which were carrying on business in the country should contribute something towards the revenues of the colony. Companies were constantly growing up, which lent large suras of money on mortgage, and the Government thought that they should pay a certain tax on the amount of profits which they made upon-operations carried on in the colony. The Government did not think that a general income tax should be imposed on the people, and they had the example of great statesmen in the old country, who contended that an income tax should only be resorted to in case of war or any other great contingency. With regard to the excise duty on beer which was proposed by the Government, he thought that the poor man had been made a stalking horse. The brewers asserted that the imposition of this tax would dimmish the consumption, and that they would suffer a great loss in consequence, besides having to nay this tax on the beer that went out of'their breweries. But he would remind the House that the loss would not fall on the brewers or on the publicans, but on the consumers. What was the fact ? . That some of the publicans had raised the price of beer from Bd. to XOd. per quart, which amounted to Bd. per gallon, to meet a tax of -three halfpence per gallon. He thought that under all the circumstances the brewers had every reason to he satisfied. In consequence of the high duty that existed on imported English beer the consumption of that article had very materially decreased. In 1863, when there was a duty of fid. upon it, the consumption was six gallons per head. In 1869 or 1870 the duty was increased to Is., and what was the result ? That the consumption was only one gallon per head of the population. The revenue in one year was £86,000, and when the duty was increased to Is. it fell down to £23,000. This fact showed that the brewer ought to be very well satisfied. What would they say if it was proposed to take theduty off English beer, and not tax the brewers of the colony. The deficiency in the revenue must he made up, and this must be done either by decreasing the duty on English beer or taxing the colonial article. Which proposal was moat acceptable to the brewer 1 He need not give an answer. - He thought that the brewers had every reason to be satisfied, more especially when it was considered that the small tax of three half-pence a gallon would not be paid by themselves, but actually by the consumers. , The brewers had increased the price of beer, and the increase fell as a matter of course on the The brewers suggested that instead of placing the duty on beer the Government should tax woollen manufactures and spirits, and- maintain the duty on sugar ; in fact, in the words of Artemus Ward, they were ready to shed the last drop of their brother’s blood. (Laughter.) As he said before, the brewers of New Zealand had nothing to complain of so far as the proposals of the Government concerned. It was erroneously -stated teat almost the whole of tho revenue derived from the imposition of the beer duty would be swallowed up by the cost entailed in its collection ; bat he could assure the House that the cost of collection would not amount to over £SOO a year, in consequence of the system of stamp duty which would be adopted in regard to the beer duty. He would now come to those changes in the tariff which were associated with the question of free-trade. At one period in this colony, it was very unwisely determined that in one portion of it the principles of free-trade should be adopted, while in another part certain protective duties should be levied. The Government were decidedly in favor of free-trade. They had before them the examples of the colony of Victoria, where protection had been adopted, and New South Wales, where free-trade prevailed. In ten years, the Blue-books showed that Victoria had made no advance whatever in her export trade, while the imports showed a corresponding result. Now in New South Wales the amount of exports in 1866 amounted to nine and a-halt millions, and in 1876 they amounted to thirteen millions. The Government believe that New Zealand’s true policy was to cultivate trade with other countries until we have attained a position as absolutely free in our commerce as England herself. iHear, hear.) Then the question might be asked, how were they going to deal with the industries established in the country? In answer to this question, he would say that the Government were not going,slike Don Quixote, to charge windmills or flocks of sheep, but they proposed to deal with the question in a reasonable manner. They proposed to remove the duty from the raw material used in the production of colonial manufactures. With regard to the grain trade, the Government did not consider New Zealand required protection. It was most bountifully protected by nature, and in regard to soil and climate stood in a position unrivalled by any other country in the world. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to the various proposals which the Government had brought down, because the Government was firmly convinced that their adoption would tend to the increased prosperity of the colony and its people. (Cheers.) Mr. WOODCOCK said it was rather unfortunate that the debate on the proposals of the Government had commenced that night, and he thought it would have been more courteous of the Government to have postponed it, seeing that ilness had prevented the hon. member for New Plymouth, who tookagreatinterest in the subject, being in his place that evening. Tho present Government hai made promises ‘of the most liberal nature, more especially in the matter of electoral reform; but these promises had not been fully fulfilled. They had brought down some proposals which he could nob support, and he could not agree with theii proposal to impose a tax on joint stock and other companies. Generally speaking, he agreed with the great scheme of Public Works indicated in the Public Works Statement a few nights before. The construction of these works was not impracticable; but the ways and means to carry them out were to his mind impracticable. The first question that naturally arose was, where were they to get the money ? Tho hon. the Minister for Public Works stated that the net profits of the railways last year amounted to £63,909, as against £31,596 for the previous year, or an increase of £32,403. In five years the net profits might bo calculated to amount to £102,015 ; but this was a very small sum compared with tho magnitude of tho work put before the House by the Minister for Public Works. It would require upwards of eight millions of pounds to carry out the scheme which was shadowed forth in tho Public Works Statement. It might be argued that there would be a very great increase in the amount of Customs revenue. He sincerely trusted this would be the case; but the increase could not bo so great as to very materially affect the sum required to carryout tho scheme so elaborately sketched out by the hon. member (Mr. Maoandrew) the other night. The hon. member proposed to borrow three millions within the next four years. At 5 per cent., this would require na amount of interest to be provided per annum of £160,000, which in the four years would amount altogether to £600,000. Considering the enormous amount of money that would be required, he did not seo how the scheme of tho Minister for Public Works was practicable. They would have to sacrifice their public estate for half what it would realise, after the completion of the railways, and this was just what ho was opposed to. Ho gave the Government every credit for the boldness of their scheme, but the way in which they proposed to carry it out was to his mind impracticable. Ho was quite willing that a million and a halt of money should bo expended every year in carrying out their Public Works policy, but he believed in the

money being raised by loan. He did not believe in the proposal of the Government to sacrifice tho public estate in order to keep out of indebtedness. (Hear, hear.) Let them go to the money market and raise the money on the most advantageous terms they could get ; but let them preserve their estate until such time as it would realise double the amount it would now fetch, namely, when the railways were constructed. (Hear, hear.) He did not, as he said before, agree with the proposal of the Government to impose a tax ou joint-stock and other companies, because he believed that those companies which were circulating their capital in the promotion of colonial industries should be allowed to continue their operations tree as air. This was a net to catch the small fry, while the big fish were allowed to go free. If companies, which were nothing more nor less than a collection of small capitalists, were to be taxed, why not tax private capitalists as well ? There were many very large private capitalists leading out money and receiving as large, and oftentimes a very much larger, rate of interest than joint stock companies, and these people were to be allowed to go scot-free. The tax was therefore an unfair one, as all taxation of a class character was of course unfair. Instead of puting a tax on the profits of joint-stock companies, the Government ought to resist any endeavor to tax what was indisputably the great motive power of all industry. If they were to have on income tax at all, then lot them have an income tax all round, but in Heaven’s name—and he said it in all sincerity—do not tax the small, struggling capitalists, and in so doing the great industrial machine of the colony. As to the beer duty, he thought they would be as well wilbout it. With regard to the tax on land, he was in favor of this proposal, but not as it was put forth by the Government. He considered that a land tax ought to be imposed on a graduating principle, instead of on the fixed principle proposed by the Government. He would now speak about the tariff, with which the hon. member for Wanganui had dealt most exhaustively. The Government had not fulfilled all they promised in this matter. He could remember the crowded meetings looking up to the Premier with tearful eyes as he descanted on the great things ha was going to do in order to elevate them to a state of happiness which they had never dreamt of before. But all these promises bad not been fulfilled. Instead of the poor man getting all the good things that the Premier led him to believe were in store for him, what was the result ? A mere tinkering with the tariff. (Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Wool cook) felt strongly in favor of the removal of all taxation from the necessaries of life. He would never cease to urge relief from the charges on the necessaries of life, not so much on account of the poor laboring man, as the cry went, but because he believed a relief from these charges would lead to the general prosperity of the country, Mr. SAUNDERS said the Bill which was now under consideration contained so much that he liked and so much that he disliked, that he did not consider it could easily be decided on which side he spoke. The Bill contained so much that was good as to cover a multitude of sins, and therefore it was he liked it. In the Parliament of New Zealand, as in other assemblies whose members were for the most part large land owners, there was a feeling averse to taxing themselves unless everyone else was taxed as well. He believed that the Government, in this Bill, proposed to place the taxation on the right shoulders, and as a step iu the right direction, and as introducing a proper principle, the Bill would have his most cordial support, although ho hoped that it would be very materially altered in committee. He coincided with the opinion expressed by the Government that improvements should not be taxed, but the lau I itself, in consequence of its increased value. This, in his opinion, was a very proper principle on which to proceed. He believed, however, that some classification of land would have to bo made, distinguishing, that land which had been benefited by , the construction of railways and other public works from laud which had not derived any benefit from their railway system. They would either have to adopt a system of classification or give to the districts which were not benefited by their railway system the jnopey that was raised in them, in order that public works might be carried out. Otherwise it would be manifestly unfair to tax land that had not been benefited to the, same..extent -as land which had derived advantage from the construction of railways and other public works. Much as he desired the proposal to exempt improvements, he did .not think the principle should be applied to the towns. He did not agree with the proposal to exempt small holders, and he did not believe that small holders would object to pay this small tax when the value of their land was improved by railway works in just the same manner as their neighbors who were not exempted. He had fought all his life against the runholdera getting unfair advantages, but so far as this Bill was concerned he thought they were treated rather unfairly. He had "read the Bill over and over again, and thought there must have been a mistake in the printing of it,because itproposed that the holder of a pastoral license should pay as much as a person who had a permanent right in the land for the value of which he was taxed. Now he thought such a provision unfair, and therefore impolitic.. He hoped that hon. members would go into committee with the earnest desire to do nothing but what was fair to all classes, whether rich or poor. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with tho remarks that had fallen from the bon member for Grey Valley, that it was an unwise and unf air thing to tax joint-stock companies. There was no one more anxious than be (Mr. Saunders) was to reach the absentees and to make them contribute their fair share of the taxation of the country, bat anybody who had thought the matter out must come to the conclusion that the absentees would not be got at by the imposition of a tax on joint-stock companies. It was most undesirable to impose such a tax as this, because it would not be paid by the capitalists themselves but by those who found it necessary to borrow money. Besides, it might have the effect of driving capital oat of the country. Nothing was so easily transferable as capital, and they should be careful not to do anything that would have a tendency to drive money out of the country. He did not agree with the withdrawal of the tax from imported grain' and flour ; if that tax were withdrawn a great deal of harm would be done to the farmers of New Zealand. He believed that if the duty were taken off sacks and timber, more good would be done than the harm that would be inflicted by taking the duty off imported flour. (Hear, hear.) He did not think it was necessary for him to go into the question of the duty on beer, as doubtless his hon. friend on his left (Mr. Fox) would deal fully with it. In his (Mr. Saunders’) opinion the game was not worth the candle ; if any tax were imposed on beer, he thought it should have been heavier than the amount proposed. He would not go through the fiananoial proposals of the Government in detail, or detain the House at any further length then, but this he did hope, that the Government would not persist in their proposal to levy a tax on joint-stock or loan companies, which it was well known did a great deal towards developing the industries of tho country. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DK LATJTOUB said it was a fortunate tiling for the Government this session to be in that position to hear candid opinions expressed from all sides of the House. Those who supported the Government in this proposal did not regard this as a tax on the landowners, as the hon. member for Cheviot seemed to think it, but a tax on what was known as the unearned increment of rent. He would not agree with the hon. member for Cheviot, that the holders of pastoral licenses should be exempted from payment of this tax. This was more the assertion of a principle than the imposition of a tax, and if it were resisted, then the question would have to be considered whether property should not bear its fair proportion • of the burdens of the districts in which it was situated. It was the duty of Liberals, and of any Liberal Government claiming to hold the reins of power, to rid the Consolidated Hund of such burdens as should bo borne by means of local taxation, in such a way that property would be called upon to discharge its duties, and then it would perhaps exercise its rights, (Hear, hear.) A cry of separation had recently been raised, but in his opinion separation was a thing of the past, and they must bury the thought of separation along with the hopes that once enshrined it. [An hon. Member : “No, no.”] He had been tempted to wander from the immediate subject under debate, but he wished now to allude to some of the remarks made by hon. members against taxing jointstock companies. If it were found that foreign capital was once being employed in the colony, and that the profits arising from the employment of that capital were drawn away from the colony, he thought the experiment should bo made of imposing a small tax upon it. Ho did not see how they could attempt to balance the tax on foreign and local capital. Capital would go to the best market, and where could capital find a more profitable field for investment than in New Zealand 1 Ho regarded all the talk about driving away

capital from New Zealand an nothing, because the field was too good for its investment to allow of its being driven away by the imposition of this tax upon joint-stock companies. He thought the House would do well to adopt a principle which would lead to such substantial results to the people of this colony as that put forth in the Bill now before the House. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SUTTON considered that the Colonial Treasurer would find himself very much in the wrong in saying that the cost of collecting the beer duty would amount to only £SOO a year. This tax would fall on the poor man, as would also the tax on boots. A- great scheme of public works had been indicated by the Minister for Public Works, but he did not inform the House how these works could be carried out. He could not agree with the Bill now before the House. If a land tax were to be imposed, it should be of a permanent kind in proportion to the benefits which land had derived from railway and other public works. Was it fair that the laud in the district which he represented, which had derived no benefit from railways or other public works, should pay this tax ? He did not think so. Another objection which he had to this land tax Bill was that it expressly exempted all native lands from the tax. Ho should hke every Bill brought down there contain proposals applicable to both races, oq any and every subject. Surely they could deal iairly with the natives, and he thought they should he called upon to bear their fair < proportion of the burdens of the country. (Hear, hear.) He was opposed to the beer duty, not because the brewers could not afford to pay It, but be* cause it was taxing local industries before they were able to bear it. He believed that one effect this duty would have would be to incr ase the price of grain, and therefore the “poor man,” as he was called—(he should like to know where the poor man lived in this colony)—would suffer a great deal more than he would gain by reducing the duty on tea and 'Ugar. If the beer duty was imposed, so far as the district which he came from Was concerned its effect would be to shut up two of the four breweries, because bottling was prohibited on the premises. The poor man would not derive such great benefits as were anticipated from a reduction of the tariff on tea, sugar, coffee, &c.; but when it was known that the total reduction would amount to 2a. 9d. per head per annum, he did not think that many would make their fortunes out of it. v , Mr. WAKEFIELD then moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday next at 2.30 p.m. The motion was agreed to, - • • The House then adjourned till next Monday at 2.30 p.m.