PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5441, 4 September 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNOIL. Tuesday, September 3. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. petitions, &c. The Hon. Mr. MANTELL presented two petitions against thedrainageof LakeEUeamere. They were referred to the Waste Lands Committee. Some returns were laid, on the table by the Colonial Secretary. A report was brought up on the Rabbit Bill. The report recommended the passing of the Bill with the additions and alterations noted. The Hon. Major RICHMOND brought up the report of the Local Bills Committee on the Wellington Reserves Bill. The report stated that the allegations in the preamble were not borne out. However, the committee recommended that the Bill should be passed. A report on the Waitaki High Schools Bill was brought up by the same bon. member. The report recommended that the educational reserves should be apportioned by Act of Parliament, keeping in view the requirements of the future. The two last reports were ordered to he printed. Several notices of motion were given. IMPREST SUPPLY BILL, NO. 3. The Hon. Colonel WHITMO BE moved to admit of the Standing Orders being so far suspended as to allow of the Bill passing through all its stages forthwith. This course was agreed to, and the Bill passed. OFFICE OF SHERIFF AND REGISTRAR. The Hon. Mr. HART asked the Colonial Secretary,- Whether tho opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in this colony has been obtained on the question of the compatibility of the office of Sheriff' with that of Registrar of the Supreme Court; and if so whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the Council a copy of such opinion ? The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE said the Government took the course of amalgamating thn offices in the interests of economy and on the advice of the AttorneyGeneral. The practice of laying before Parliament the opinions of the Law Officersfor the guidance of the Government would be inconvenient. However, in this instance there had been no written opinion. Had there been there would have been no objection to lay it on the table. LITERARY INSTITUTIONS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. OAMARU WATERWORKS BILL. On the motion to go into committee on this Bill the Hon. Mr. Campbell characterised Oamaru mouey matters as a financial muddle. He spoke at considerable length, quoting a letter from Mr. Hislop to the Oamaru Evening Mail, and other matters. He was followed by the Hons. Messrs. Reynolds, Miller, and Waterhouse. The latter hou. gentleman moved that the Bill be committed that day six months,—Sir Dillon Bell supported the amendment.—The Hon. Colonel Whitmore supported the third reading, urging the Council to pause before they threw out the Bill.—The Hon. Dr. Pollen was in favor of tho amendment, and Mr. Hart having spoken shortly, the Council divided on the question that the word “ presently” stand part of the question. The word was struck out by 14 to 9. Another discussion ensued on the question that the words “six months” be inserted in lieu thereof. Ultimately the debate was adjourned for a fortnight. oatlin’s river cemetery bill. This Bill was read a second time. DANGEROUS GOODS BILL. On the motion to go into committee, the Hon. Dr. Menzies thought that some steps should he taken for eliminating the volatile oils from kerosene, which could be done with the loss of some slight volume. The Hon. Mr. MANTELL very much preferred the present Act. . He pointed out what he considered defects in the proposed Bill. He asked the Colonial Secretary to postpone the committal of the Bill for a'fortnight. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE informed Mr. Mantell that the Bill had been carefully studied by the Director of the Museum, who had recommended the excision of the 6th clause, and approved of the rest of the measure. The Bill was then ordered to be committed presently. IN COMMITTEE. At the evening sitting, the Council went into committee on the Gatlin's River Cemetery Bill, which passed through without amendment. The Dangerous Goods Act Amendment Bill was formally committed, and progress reported on the first clause. In the Juries Act Amendment Bill the Hon. Colonel Whitmore , proposed a new clause, exempting managers of banks from service on special juries. The clause was agreed to, to stand as clause 11.—Another new clause (12), to do away with the exemption of militia officers, was also agreed to ; as was a further new clause (!3) mailing it necessary that the finding of all juries of four should ha unanimous.—The other clauses were then proceeded with. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, September 3. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. PETITIONS AND NOTICES. Petitions were presented by Messrs. Wooloook, Macfarlane, Rowe, Diguau, Hamlin, Moss, and Hislop. Notices were given by Messrs. Montgomery, De Lautour, O'Rorke, Pyke, Taiaroa, Tole, and Feldwick. SOUTH SEA ISLAND TRADE. In answer to Mr. Hobbs, Sir GEORGE GREY said some information was given in the import and export returns in reference to the South Sea Island trade. Further information on that point would be laid before the House. PROTECTION OP ANIMALS ACT. Mr. McMINN asked the Government, —If they will bring in a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1573, so as to enable settlers to protect crops, &0., from injuries inflicted by game ? The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN could not give a definite answer just then. He would let the hon. member know in a few days. COLONEL MACDONNELL. In answer to Mr. Dignan, The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said Colonel Macdonnell’s case and the compensation to be given were under tho consideration of the Government. RAILWAY MAPS. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON asked the Minister for Public Works, —Whether he will, at an early date, lay before this House a map with all the railways proposed in the Public Works Statement to be constructed by the Government marked thereon ; showing in distinctive colors (1) the railways already authorized by Parliament; (2) the railways now proposed ; and (3) the order in which it is proposed to construct them ? The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW replied in the affirmative as to tho two first questions, but the third query involved some difficulty, but that information would be given if possible. MR. JOLLY'S CASE. Mr. MoMXNN asked the Minister of Justice, —If he has any objection to lay before this House a copy of the depositions and correspondence in the recent case against Mr. Thomas Jolly, of Hamilton, Waikato, for alleged breach of Scab Act, as decided in the Resident'Mngistrate’a Court in Auckland ? The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said it was an important case, and the papers would be laid on the table and printed. The matter could be discussed when the Sheep Bill came under consideration. NEW ZEALAND COAL. In answer to Mr. Murray, Tho Hon. Mr. MACANDREW read a memo, from the Railway Department, explaining why Newcastle coal was used on the Otago railways at a cost of -IVI. per engine per mile instead of ICaitangata coal at a cost of 3d. It was found in the long run that the Newcastle coal was cheaper and better. NEW BILLS. The Bluff Harbor Board Endowment BUI and the Oamaru Athemcura Bill were brought in and read a first time. THE ORDER OP BUSINESS. The Hon. Mr. STOUT moved that tho first three orders of the day be postponed, in order that the Land Tax Bill debate might be resumed. Mr. MoLEAN complained of this course being adopted, and was proceeding to speak on the question, when Sir GEORGE GREY said the Land Tax Bill had been put fourth ou tho list by a mistake. The SPEAKER explained how the error had occurred. After some little discussion the motion was agreed to. LAND TAX BILL. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE said the colony must be congratulated ou having for the first time been brought face to face with finance. Hitherto financial reform had been spasmodic

and of a character merely dependent upon the necessities of the Government for the time being. In 1873 it was declared that the .financial equilibrium of the colony depended upon ad valorem duties, which they how learned had been a and had demoralised the people. In 1874 it was said abolition was the only means of securing financial soundness, and so different nostrums had been propounded till the Laud Fund had been generalised. That was the hegining of financial reform, and in this connection he might refer to the separation question. _ He considered whatever had been the individual opinions of Ministers, as a body they had, by decentralisation of administration, and by their financial policy, endeavored'' to remove all the causes of discontent which had led to separation being called for, more especially in that the Minister of Public Works in his Statement had recognised and acted upon the principle of localising the land revenue. lu 1876 abolition was consummated, and the next year the House, by resolution, determined that the incidence of taxation should be changed. That resolution was the keynote of the policy of the present Government. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) He objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Geraldine because its effect would be to exempt large landowners from their fair share of the burden of taxation, and he hoped the Government would not he upset by such a side issue being raised. That amendment, if carried, meant the crippling of the local bodies, the imposition of new responsibility upon them, and the decreasing of their resources, in order to free the large property holders from taxation. The question now was not so much the increasin'* of taxation as the readjustment of the burdens of the people, and that was the object of the Government. The hon. member for Geraldine had said no one should be exempted from the tax, but that would not have the desired effect. To tax all alike would not remedy inequalities. If one man had been for a’ long time compelled, to carry twenty pounds, and another forty pounds, it would be no relief to the more heavily-weighted man to put ten pounds on himself and ten pounds on the other, hut it would be a relief to take ten pounds from the fdrty-pouud man and put it on to the twentypound man. That would equalise the burdens. I hat was the object the Government had in view, and that was what the House had pledged itself to effect. Criticising the Government proposals in detail, he must say he would have preferred a general income tax, accompanied by the relief of the Customs, and would like to have, seen the Government following the illustuous example of Sir Robert Peel and Gladstone. The income tax had been called a war tax, but it was in times of peace, when the necessaries of life were reduced in cost by its operation, that the incometax had been most beneficial. He defended the exemptions under the income tax as right in principle and expedient in practice, so that the tax should fall principally on the rich; and in that view he approved the exemptions in the Government scheme. As to the tariff proposals, he was pleased with the substitution fixed for ad valorem duties, and would have liked to see the principle more widely extended, but considered the Treasurer was inconsistent in abolishing the' duty on flour while he retained it on timber and English beer and other commodities of a similar character. He was strongly in favor of the principle of a laud tax, but thought the “unimproved value” was an impracticable basis of taxation, however good it might be in theory. The work of valuation would be very expensive and unsatisfactory unless some better definition could be found. He hoped the Government would adopt some' other means of discovering the unearned 1 increment. The joint stock companies tax would inevitably fail in its purpose, because the tax would not come out of the pockets of those most able to hear it. Borrowers, men who wanted money to carry ou the work of colonisation, would be the principal sufferers. His opposition to the beer tax was still stronger, because it was not in accordance with the true principles of political economy to tax local industries, and in its operation it would be very unfair. The richer men would not pay the tax, bat the wages class, and he considered a glass of beer as much a necessary as a cup of tea. (Mr. Stout ; No.) Well, the Premier himself had said so at Westport. (A laugh.) The result already was that the price of beer had been increased to the working man who took his beer home, butnot to those who drank it over the bar ; so that the tax had a bad moral effect, for if a man was to drink beer it was much better he should do so at home than in the public-house. It was to he hoped the tax would be withdrawn. Looking at the Government scheme as a whole, he said if the Government insisted upon all proposals being accepted he should waive his objections to the beer tax and joint stock companies tax,' in order to see the principle of taxing landed property preserved intact, in the hope that next session a general property and income tax would be brought down, accompanied with a complete remodelling of the tariff. Certainly he hoped the House would not. stultify its action of last session by agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. ROWE was altogether disappointed with the financial proposals of the Government, which simply amounted to tinkering of the very lowest and meanest character. He particularly objected to the joint stock companies tax, as bearing heavily upon the circulating capital 'of the colony. It would he disastrous to put such a tax on just now when new capital was wanted in the colony. He also objected strongly to the beer tax and the other proposals, including the land tax, but would have been glad to support a scheme of taxation on all clear income above a certain amount.

Mr. KELLY, who at times was barely audible iu the gallery, was understood to say he should support the Government policy generally, though if the land tax was brought down by the Government as a property tax simply, he was opposed to its principle, as he considered income and realised wealth of all descriptions should also be taxed ; indeed the House, by resolution last session, had declared in favor of that. The exemption of improvements from taxation did not meet with his approval, because they, like the land itself, represented the investment of profits or capital for future profits and benefit. In practice, too, the taxation on the unimproved value basis would be different. What was improvement? Not a {>enny might have been spent on certain land itself, yet that land might have acquired a hi»h value by reason of improvements on properties all round. He referred iu detail to a number of difficulties in the way of arriving at a valuation, and declared such a basis of taxation was absurd. As to the exemption of the first 500 acres, it was thoroughly indefensible in his opinion. If there was to be a tax on property, let all be taxed, and not merely laud above a certain area. It savored too much of class legislation. If this tax was not intended as a tax upon property, but was a wild-goose chase after the unearned increment, then he had to say this: If, as John Stuart Mill said, tho unearned increment belonged to the nation, then it belonged to the individuals composing the nation, and belonged to them in proportion to the amount of property held. Then it it belonged to them in that ratio, why should it be taken from them and be returned to the individuals forming the nation in what probably would be an unfair proportion? He cited Baxter on this point. If the Government had a right to take the profits of individuals in that way, surely, by a parity of reasoning, it was equally right that individuals, like the residents on the West Coast during the war, who suffered a deterioration in the value of their property, should be reimbursed those losses. If the Government wanted the unearned increment they should cease to part with the fee-simple of the land, and should resort to the principle of leasing. He defended the principle of subsidies on the ground that all the people of the colony had the right to use the roads and works constructed by the local bodies. He should support the Bill, but should endeavor to modify it in committee. The other taxes met his approval to a great extent, though he thought it was a failing iu the joint stock company tax that it only touched capital iu one particular channel.

Mr. THOMSON said the Hon. the Treasurer at Martonhad estimated he would get £IOO,OOO from bis land tax, but in his opinion that estimate was fallacious. He found that the freehold land of the colony amounted last year to 11,164,000 acres. According to the road board valuation, which included improvements, that land was worth £1 per acre, but the Treasurer did not include improvements, so that the amount of his estimate could not bo so largo. His (Mr. Thomson’s) estimate was that the land was worth from £6 to £7 per acre—(oh, oh)—and deducting the unearned increment and improvements (say) £4 per acre, the balance of value would yield about 2d. per acre, or £90,000 a year; bat there was a largo quantity of pastoral land which also had to pay a tax of Id. per acre. It was clear the tax would exce'ed largely the Treasurer's estimate. Why the Supremo Court House on Lambton-quay, Wellington, brought £l6O per loot. That would pay so many halfpennies per foot, or 6s. Bd. per foot. Now, the length of Lambton-quay was about a mile, bo that if

aU property paid’’in that proportion, "Wellington would yield about £20,000 a year. Passing on, ho said he thought the Government wero trusting too much to Land Pood. That fund during the last nine years had averaged about £800,060 or £900,000, hut the Treasurer'now expected for this year to get £1,229,U0Ch or £400,000 more than the average for nine years past. The Land Fund must coma to an end some day, and what then ? ■ Why, the land tax would be increased, and he as the ro ■ presentative of a country constituency protested against the idea that land could be taxed to any extent, and drew a picture or the struggles and difficulties of farmers. He went on to complain of the manner in which laud had been sacrificed in the North Island, and wanted to know how the unearned increment could bo fairly ascertained whoa land had been sold in the South at £lO per acre, and similar laud had only brought ss. per acre in the North. The only thing that could reconcile him to the tax was that before long every description of property must ho taxed. He disagreed with the exemptions up to 500 acres, because all had a right to pay it, and because the class proposed to be exempted were able to pay it and would not object to it. Besides, these men bad great political power, and they would not feel proper responsibility 'in electing representatives if they had not to bear a fair share of taxation. He also objected to the native exemptions, and thought the taxation of the Crown tenants unwise, because it would be sure to affect the prices of the leases. The beer tax mot his approval, as beer was a luxury, and corningl'-vitbiu that category, ou<dit to ho taxed. [The House then adjourned for dinner, resuming at 7.30 p.m.] At the hour of adjournment he was referring to the beer duty, which, according to the Colonial Treasurer, would bring in a revenue of £30,000 a year. But he thought a much greater amount of revenue might be derived from this source by the adoption of what was called the bell-punch system, which was at present in operation in America. Under this system there were two small bells in every bar—one for malt and the other for alcoholic liquors. Every drink sold by the barkeeper was registered, and the tax charged on alcoholic liquors was one cent per glass, and one half-cont per drink of malt liquor sold or drunk bn the promises. The hotelkeepers were very much opposed to this system at first, bat they were now greatly in favor of it, as it moat effectually prevented any pilfering of money on the part of the barkeeper, [The hen. member read to tbo House a description of the bell-punch in use throughout the United States.] He went on to say that in hia opinion the system might he introduced into New Eealand. Supposing one halfpenny a pint were charged for every pint of beer drunk or sold in the public-houses, it would amount to Sd. per gallon, and this would bring in a very handsome revenue—he believed as much as £IOO,OOO a year. (Hear, hear.) With regard to a land tax, he did not think a general land tax would ho fair to all. It would, in his opinion, be much fairer'to divide the country into railway districts, and charge them according to the benefits the land had derived from particular railways. If districts were charged with the maintenance of the railways which were made through them, ho thought the effect of it would be this—that only such railways would be made as were likely to pay. (Hear, hear.) He would vote for the second reading of this Bill on the understanding that he reserved to himself the right of i reposing such amendments as seemed desirable to him when the House went into committee. (Cheers.) The Hon. Major ATKINSON was loudly cheered on rising to address the House. He thought the Government had acted wisely in endeavoring as far as possible to confine the debate on their g moral financial scheme to a particular measure, instead of taking it, as it were, disjointedly on the several Bills which the House had under consideration. It was no doubt a difficult matter to deal with so many subjects, although they were part of one scheme, in a single speech. They had the Colonial Treasurer something like an hour and a half or two hoars to lay his scheme before the House ; the Minister for Public Works also occupied about the same time; and since then they had the speech of- the hen. Colonial Treasurer on the Land Tax Bill —the Government talcing up altogether about five hours to expound their policy. Therefore, he trusted the House would excuse him if he trespassed on their attention at a little greater length than he should otherwise have done, and if his statement was not as concise as he could desire it should he. (Hear, hear.) He proposed to examine the Financial Statement and the Public Works Statement in their twofold aspects, as a history of past transactions, and the proposals of the future; but before proceeding to do so he wished to make a few remarks with regard to the public accounts of the colony- It was a matter of great regret that for the last two or three sessions the hen. the Premier and a few of 'his immediate followers had thought it right to impugn the accuracy of the public accounts, and although, whenever specific charges were made, they were each refuted, still by dint of reiteration a feeling had got abroad that something was seriously wrong in the Treasury, and* a reference to the public prints at the time when the hon. gentlemen first obtained seats on those benches would show that it was supposed that now, having possession of the Treasury records, auoh revelations would be made as would render it absolutely impossible for members of the late Government ever to take office again, not only on political grounds, but on the grounds of personal corruption.. He was very loath to refer to this matter, and probably in a statement of this sort he should not have dope so if they were not in a position to settle this matter once and for ever. Fortunately, as those gentlemen had taken their seats on those benches, the question could now he settled once and for ever. They had, in the first place, the Statement of the Colonial Treasurer, and there was no statement made as to anything being wrong in the accounts or in the Treasury. But that was not all, for through the mode in which they had hitherto kept their accounts it so happened that the accounts—the epitome of which he used last session, and which was to be found in his Financial Statement—were used in detail by the hon. the Colonial Treasurer in preparing his Financial Statement, and but for the block that had occurred in the Printing Office, these accounts would have been on the table, with the name of the Colonial Treasurer signed to them. There was, in fact, an absolute refutation of the whole statement made by those hon, gentlemen last session and the session before, and made so freely too. In approaching the subject that night he had not only the public accounts before him, but he knew that they were absolutely true ; and therefore, instead of troubling himself about book-keeping, he could proceed to consider what was the true meahingof these accounts. Withreferencetotha loans, hon. members could refer to his State- : ment last session ; they would also be able to compare that Statement with the statement made 'subsequently by the hon. the Premier, who represented that he (Major Atkinson) had understated the indebtedness of the colony by some millions. But hon. members would now sec that his (Major Atkinson’s) Statement and the Statement of the Colonial Treasurer this session were identical. He (Major Atkinson) represented that the then Government had an actual surplus of £148,000, supposing their assets and liabilities realised and amounted to what the Government calculated on at the time. The hon. the Premier, both before and after obtaining a seat on those benches, declared that this was not a surplus, and that he (Major Atkinson) knew it was not a surplus at the time he said it was. But now they had the hon. the Colonial Treasurer taking it as correct, and carrying it to credit as the surplus of the year. Ho thought that in justice to the late Government and to himself ho should make this statement to the House. They were now in that position that both the Government and the Opposition were agreed as to the public accounts. He would now proceed to examine the Financial Statement, so far as it related to last year. The hon. the Premier stated last year that ho saw his way to reduce the departmental estimates by the sum of £100,009. On page 3 of the Financial Statement the Colonial Treasurer stated there remained a net saving of £175,000. Looked at in one way, there was no abjection to this way of stating it, but it must bo taken in quite another light when treated in connection with the statement of the Premier last year as to the amount of saving he would be able to effect in the departmental estimates. There was no actual saving at all in the way which the hon. gentleman pledged himself to effect a saving. Omitting the departments of education, railways, and ; surveys of lands, and taking the total expenditure in the nine other dapartmonts of the public service, there had not only not been a saving of £IOO,OOO, hut an expenditure of £7OOO beyond the amount proposed by the late Government; and this year the present Government asked for £15,000 more than was applied for by tbo late Government for the same service. He did not wish to imply that the Government had »ot every desire to make whatever reductions they could. Ho believed they tried all they Could to do it, but they had failed, and the

fact that theyexpended £7OOO more than the late Government for the same service proved the correctness of this statement. It was nothing else but talk about reducing the departmental estimates. The fact was it could not be done, and the present Government were now asking for £15,000 more than the late Government. In other words, they could not manage to carry on the same service unless they got £15,000 more voted by the House. No one was louder than the hon. the Premier, when lie was in opposition, in denouncing the carrying of loans to ordinary revenue; but what was the fact ? That the present Government actually carried £73,000 of loan to the public accounts, and hunted with it in order to show an alleged surplus of £123,000. With respect to the surplus, he pointed out it was made up in the same way as that of the late Government, which the Premier then declared to be no surplus, and that he (Major Atkinson) knew it was not. because he had carried Treasury bills to the amount of £210,000 to the credit of Land Fuad. Why the Treasurer had dons the same thing with regard to £19,0000, so that if the Premier’s doctrine last year were true there was not now a surplus, but absolutely a deficiency of £70,000, Passing on to tho Joan, he congratulated the Government ou its successful floating, though the credit of its success was due almost entirely to the efforts of Sir Julius Vogel. (Hear, hear ; No, no.) The Houso ought to reprobate sending Home Mr. Larnach, because it was quite inexcusable, more especially as tho House was not informed of tiie proposal to send him Home. This brought bimtothequestionoftheiuscriptionofstock. The Treasurer informed the Houso that certain loans had been inscribed. The House would remember how the Premier treated him with respect to that Bill. When he brought it in, the hon. gentleman charged him with having exhausted the means of the colony, and in order to get more money had invented a new plan by which to extract more money from the English speculator—he had denounced the Bill as the most impudent attempt ever made to impose upon an Assembly. Well,-the hon. member, when he got into office, had brought down the very same Bill, except that it had at its head the name of “ Sir George Grey,” instead of that of “ Major Atkinson,” but when in committee voted fruitlessly in favor of the excision of the operative clause. Then he agreed to the introduction of a clause suspending the operation of the Bill till ths Governor proclaimed it in force ; but the first thing he did during the recess was to advise tho Governor to bring it into force, and now, as a matter of fact, the whole of the future finance of the Government was built up on the provisions of that Act. The man entitled to the credit of the Act, and the good which would flow from it, was Sir Julius Vogel; and it would be a lasting disgrace to tho Government, especially those members who professed to be his personal friends, that they had not appointed Sir Julius an agent under the Act. Coming to the proposed expenditure for the year, he said he considered it reasonable, but he did not like the calculation of the revenue. Ho did not believe the Customs would increase £50,000, especially in view of reduced expenditure on public works. As to the land revenue, that was a mere matter of guess work evidently, for no data had been given for the estimated increase of half-a-million above the average. Certainly if the whole of the Canterbury land was to be reserved, that sum could not he reached ; otherwise it might, because of probable sales in the North Island ; but the amount was stretched to the fullest possible extent. The estimated surplus, £50,000, was small, seeing the Supplementary Estimates had not been yet brought down, and he believed there was a mistake in reference to the subsidies of £25,000, and a discrepancy between the estimates of the Colonial Treasurer and the Minister for Public Works of some £IB,OOO. Probably that was a departmental matter. The Hou. Mr. BALLANCE : Both are. The Hon. Major ATKINSON: Bothoouldnot be right, but they might be reconcilable. As to future proposals, it would bo remembered the House last year directed that tho Government proposals were to be based on a property and ineome tax; and the Premier, in a speech wherein he showed to his own satisfaction that £350,000 at least could be saved, quite approved of the property and income tax, and further said that there should be no exemptions, because it was of the utmost importance that the poor man should pay even his threepence towards the revenue in order that when he arrived at old age and became hard up he might have the right to go to the workhouse. That was a peculiar reason to give for the payment of taxes by a poor man that he might have the right to go to the workhouse when his day for labor was ended, yet such was the reason put forth by the Premier. However, that had been abandoned, and the sole object was not to raise money for revenue purposes, nor to compensate for the remission of Custom House duties, but simply to get at that wretched figment the nnearnedincrement. The Treasurer said one reason of the land tax was that it was only fair the land should pay some of the cost of the public works which had been constructed at the expense of the working class, and then he proceeded to warn the lauded proprietors, or rather the agriculturists, for in the colony the term “landholder” was a misnomer, and whom he had always considered to be the backbone of the country, to prepare in time for some dreadful calamity, such as the French revolution, in which they would occupy the same position as the French aristocracy of the latter end of the eighteenth century did in that revolution. The hon. gentleman said he wished to get at the unearned increment; but how was he going to do that. Suppose three men in Canterbury bought land at £2 per acre, that the railways increased the value of one man’s laud to £2O per acre, that of the second to £lO, and that of the third to £4. The first would pay fifteenpence per acre, the second 5d., and the third 2d. But would that tax really give the State the unearned increment fairly? No ; the tax would be quite disproportionate. Then, in Taranaki land had been sold at different prices from £4 down to £l, yet all were to be taxed alike, and so were the lands north of Auckland, where there were no railways, and no prospect of railways, or even roads. Land there was not worth ss. per acre, yet it had to pay the same tax, (at the rate of Ad. upon a valuation of £1 per acre) as the land in Canterbury, which was worth upwards of £2 per acre. It was trifling with the House to make such absurd propositions, and it was also trifling with the House to disobey its express resolution that the new taxation was to be arranged on the basis of an income tax. One word about the mode of valuing the land. He was rather puzzled to understand how this could be done under the provisions of the present Bill. He would go to his.'own province—[An Hon*. Member : Province ?] —well, provincial district; he had heard so much about provincialism lately, that he had fallen into a bad habit, and 'used tho term province for provincial district.’(Hear, hear.) Taking the case of his own provincial district, he was, as ho had said, rather puzzled to know how the land could be valued. Would land which had been cleared ho valued according to what it was worth when the timber was upon it, and would land which at one time had been swamp be valued as swamp 2 It was a mere gilding of tho pill to say that it would be rated at its original value. Ho did not intend to vote against the motion for second reading, although he was opposed to the Bill, but he would moat certainly vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Geraldine. He was opposed to the levying of this land tax, because the Government, in his opinion, had not brought forward a single argument to show why capital- invested in laud should be taxed, while other capital was not taxed at all. But notwithstanding that ho was opposed to the Bill he would vote for the second reading of that measure, for the purpose of showing that he was in favor of an income and property tax which would apply to all. Tho beer duty he was opposed to, because he looked upon it as tho beginning of excise duty—the getting in of the thin end of tho wedge in this direction. He disapproved altogether of any proposal to tax native industries, and ho objected to a commencement being made in this direction with colonial beer. The Government had distinctly failed to carry out the promises that were made by them last session—promises which brought them into power, and kept them there up to the present time. The Government promised to effect an equalisation of taxation, and* to devise such measures as would result in the wealthy classes bearing a greater proportion of the public burdens than they had hitherto borne. They had failed to do this, and introduced a lot of sham measures that would not work. It was the almost unanimous wish of tho House that these sham measures should be withdrawn—(Cries of Hear, hear, and No, no) —and that a general income and property tax applicable to all should he brought forward. (Eonewed cries of Hear, hear, and No, no.) Then, as to the tariff, very largo promises had been made, but the performances had been very small. In the present state of the revenues he thought tyf Government ought not to have proposed fv reduction of tho duties on tea and

sugar. , A reduction of those duties - would not benefit the poor man, but would benefit the richer people. The -House had before its eyes in the Public Works Statement the necessity there would be for a large loan. Looking at the state of the revenue, and the large public works that were in hand, and others which would have to be carried out, he did not think it was wise to- reduce tho duties on tea and sugar. These duties were not practically felt, and it was a wrong principle to equalise taxation by reduction. Ho looked at the matter in the broad view that the proposed reduction of the tea and sugar duties would amount to a loss of borrowing power of £2,000,000. He was also opposed to the duties being taken off cornsacks and imported grain, and a consequent loss to the revenue of £3OOO. If the duty were taken off cornsacks and grain, there was no reason why it should not be taken off timber as well. A review of tho tariff proposals of the Government showed clearly that they had merely tinkered with it, and given no consideration to the matter, or at least that amount of consideration it deserved. The House had great reason to complain of a Government that proposed to deal with the question of a change in tho incidence of taxation bringing down Bills of such an ill-considered nature as those which were now before the House. He then proceeded to deal with the Public Works Statement, which he admitted was comprehensive in a certain way, but was not a masterpiece, and was calculated to disappoint. The only sound principle it contained which was new was the reservation of land near the proposed lines. That was a good thing if it could be done, but it must be remembered that a million and a quarter must be got out of laud for every-day necessities; and if this was to be given up how were the said necessities to bo met ? Where was the money to come from 2 The devotion of a surplus to public works was simply a delusion. The surplus was purely imaginary. The truth was that if the surplus was not to be imaginary the Treasurer ought to show where it was to come from. This dazzling of the public with tho statement that public works were to be constructed out of revenue was deceptive; the works could only be carried on by loan. The Statement was remarkable fop other omissions, and it was very unjust to the large districts which were to bo taxed, but which were not to participate in the benefit of the Public Works scheme, except that they were to increase their powers of local selfgovernment—their power to construct their own roads without means given them to do it. These districts were overlooked, he hoped not on account of their small voting power. Then there was this omission, the absence of provision for immigration. That was the keystone of our system, but not a word had been said on the subject during the six weeks the House had been in session. The salvation of the country depended upon a steady, continuous stream of immigration. He complained also of favoritism, certain districts having been promised railways out of loan, while others were to trust to the surplus. He objected to the absence of provision for tho main roads of the country, when the Treasurer claimed to have . a surplus. The fact was that this policy laid down in the public Works Statement was part of tho policy to restore provincialism in some shape or another, or to bring about separation. (Hear, hear; No, no.) It had never been denied by the Premier distinctly, nor by tho Attorney-General, and the policy of the Minister of Public Works was expressly in favor of it. He said to these out-districts ; “Make your own roads, do your own local works, but you shall not have a shilling from us, and then you will understand what abolition means.” That is what the hon. gentleman says, and he continues : “You have an organisation which I do not like, and which you shall not continue to have. The country may go to rack, the roads may fall into disrepair. I believe in provincialism, and provincialism I will have.” If he could get a distinct denial from the Attorney-General and the Premier and the Minister for Public Works, he would be satisfied, but until he got that specific denial he must continue to believe that the object of the Government was to secure provincialism in another form, or separation, especially when he considered the past history of the Premier and several members of his Government, and the assertions of the friends of the Government. (Cheers from Government supporters.) No better confirmation of what he said was wanted than those cheers. The absence of provision for main roads and local public works was a serious omission, and he hoped tho House would insist on the Government making proper provision, because the county system and tho railway system must fail if no provision were made. He also objected strongly to the seizing of 15 per cent, of the Patea land fund as unfair, and only explicable by the fact that he was the representative of that constituency. Having criticised, he might say he believed in the immediate imposition of au income and property tax, and that until it was known what would be the produce of that tax there should be no remission of Customs duties. The country could not afford to lose borrowing power to the extent of two millions, for that would be the effect of the remission, especially in view of the fact that the revenue proper did not come up to the expenditure last year. If it was found the colony could afford the remissions, let them be made on a statesmanlike principle, not in the hotch-potch way now proposed. Before sitting down he would refer to a statement that had become celebrated, he supposed, and was referred to in the Financial Statement —he referred to the term “political rest.” He wished to say that he did not retract a single'word he) used on the occasion referred to. He would ask the House to. remember the state of affairs at that time. They had gone through two years of unexampled turmoil ; they had carried the greatest constitutional change that had ever been effected in any colony ; their revenues had been failing, and if they had gone on as they were doing the scheme of immigration and public works would have had to be stopped; a great deal of administrative work devolved on the Government, and it was under all these circumstances that he had made the statement referred to. What the Government did then, under existing circumstances, only served to show the miserahleness of what the Government was now attempting to do, in bringing forward a series of abortive measures for the ’consideration of the House. The hon, member resumed his seat amid loud cheers. The Hon. Mr. STOUT rose amid cheers and cries of “ Adjourn ’’ and “ Go on.” He said he should not have risen at that period of tho debate hut tor some remarks that had fallen from the hon. member for Egmont. The present Government were accused by that hon. member of having some sinister design to bring about the separation of this colony, and the reason given for this was that some members of the Government were separationists. That was the only reason given, or that could be given for this charge. [Major Atkinson : I gave a reason.] The only other reason given was that the public works had been placed on a proper footing, and that some reductions wero made in the extraordinary misexpenditure of public money that had gone on previously. Was the Government which appointed a special Minister for the Middle Island some years ago accused of being in favor of separation? If the present Government had made any such appointment as this, there might have been some foundation for making the charge against them that had been made by the hon. member for New Plymouth. But because the Government had reduced the expenditure, and got rid of a department that was useless, they wero accused of having a sinister design to separate the colony. Touching on this question, ho should like to know whether the previous Government did not contain members who were declared separationists? The hon. member for Walkouaiti (Mr. McLean) got his seat because ho was a proclaimed separationist, and opposed to Sir Julius Vogel. [Mr. McLean ; The hon. member is quite misrepresenting me.] Would the hon. member for Waikouaiti say that ho was not a separationist? [Mr. McLean: Years ago I was a separationist. I never got my seat through being a proclaimed separationist.] He would also instance Mr. Donald Beid. Was ho not a proclaimed separationist 1 (Hear, hear, and No, no.) Ho voted for sepal alien. [Mr. McLean : Ho voted to turn out the Government.] He proclaimed himself a separationist. Tho previous Government contained three separationists, and yet they accused tho present Government of being a separationist Government. Ho (Mr. Stout) would tell tho Houso why this cry of separation had been raised. The hon. member for New Plymouth was afraid to come down with a vote of no confidence, and ho told tho Houso there was some sinister design on the part of the Government. If tho hon. member was desirous of keeping them away from separation, ho would at onoo cease crying out “ separation.” The hon. member for New Plymouth was tho assumed loader of the Opposition, and ho camo down, and after making a two hours’ speech hesitated whether he would, veto for or against a Bill which he condemned. When the present Government wero in Opposition they carno down with n do-

finite vote, and did not get.up in the and say they did not know how they should vote when they declared any Bill to be a sham. In this matter under consideration he begged to say that the Governmenb would stand by their policy; Xf the hon, member for New Plymouth thought this policy was a sham, it was his duty to table a direct vote of no confidence. Let them, if defeated, go to the country and see whether the country would support the Government or not. (Hear, hear.) This would be the proper mode of conducting Parliamentary Government, instead of criticising a few small items connected with the departmental estimates and the tariff. (A laugh.) In the course of this debate some speeches had been made which he did not think it necessary to refer to. A great deal of ignorance had been displayed as to the names of some of the greatest political authorities, especially a great authority in the United States, who had been referred to on the previous night. One hon. gentleman did not even know lifs name. The hon. member for Mount Egmont, in referring to the departmental estimates, had mixed the figures up in such a fashion as to bear out his statement that the estimate for the same service exceeded those of the previous Government ; but if the various departments were taken separately, and the items dealt with seriatim, it would be seen that there was a decrease of expenditure. The hon. member was careful not to refer to the saving that had been effected in the Public Works and Kailway Departments. [Majoii Atkinson : Yes, I did specially, and further, I said that the expenditure was quite reasonable.] If the hon. member for New Plymouth thought that the expenditure was quite reasonable, then .why did he take up twenty minutes in speaking against it. [Major Atkinson : Oh, oh.] He was not a little surprised to hear so much said about the Agent-General by the two hon. members opposite. There was at one time no bitterer opponent of the Agent-General, and the hon. member for New Plymouth was not a particular friend of the Agent-General at one period. (Hear, hear.) But that hon. member had been a convert to Sir Julius Yogel, and the House knew what converts usually were. With regard to the floating of loans, he (Mr. Stout) was not going to deny that the colony was greatly indebted to Sir Julius Vogel, but at the same time the credit that was due to others ought not to be denied them. He (Mr. Stout! would declare that but for Mr. Larnach tho last loan would not have been taken up by the Bank of England, or its success have been so great as it had been after being floated on the London market. 'He denied there was any conflict between , tho Treasurer and the Minister for Public Works as to the means of constructing the railways. The whole House approved of the withdrawal of' the land from sale, and the late Government were quite afraid to deal with the question last session, because they feared to lose support. The hou.’ member for Egmont had said unearned increment was a “figment”— that was, that there was no such thing as an unearned increment. [Major Atkinson : Hear, hear.] He felt ashamed that a gentleman who had been Premier should hold such an opinion ; and further, that ho should have cheered a remark of the hon. member for Geraldine in derision of political science. He quoted from Professor Cairns, Mill, and others to show there was an unearned increment which onght to be taxed. Capital invested in land was not in the same position as capital invested in personal property, as was evidenced by the legislation of this colony and of all countries in reference to the property in land. Land should be taxed because of the benefit it derived from public expenditure. Ho quoted figures to show that at the present time 10s. in the pound on all property in the colony was being paid out of the Consolidated Revenue for the benefit of land. In no country had land been so well treated as in New Zealand. Why, in this colony £3 3s. per head was contributed to the Consolidated Revenue by all. the people, as against £2 17s. (including excise and everything else) in England, and the comparison was less favorable in the case of other countries and New Zealand. He quoted Mr. Gosohen in favor of the Treasurer’s contention against a tax on personal property, as in America, and said if such a system were introduced hero it would crush the nascent industries of the colony, and seriously embarrass the agriculturalist. Tho land tax proposed by the Government was fat preferable to a tax on personal property, because of tho tendency of the former not to burst up estates, but to prevent the aggregation of large estates, and in that view tho exemption proposed instead of being too large was too small. He did not intend to take up much more time in dealing with the land tax question. There were some hon. members who proposed a tax on all property, and an income tax was also proposed. He would understand an income tax as dissociated from a land tax and a tax on personal property. An income tax had always proved to be a failure wherever it was imposed. What was to be done with those who had large blocks of land from which they derived no income ? [Hon. Members : Suppose a property tax.] It there was to be an income tax and a property tax, then persons deriving an income from property would have to pay double taxation. If an income tax were imposed he believed that the result would be to change the incidence of taxation for tho worse instead of the better, so far as equalising the burdens of taxation was concerned. He was suprised to hear the same members who spoke in favor ,ot an income tax oppose the proposal 'to tax joint stock companies. They declared that by taxing joint stock companies they would be taxing the industries of the country, but it they taxed the industries of the country by imposing a tax on companies, how much more would the industries of the country he taxed if an income tax were imposed on private' individuals. The great argument in favor of taxing joint stock companies instead of private individuals was that the incomes of companies were so much more easily ascertained than the incomes of private individuals. The putting of a tax on companies was no new thing in that House, This very Parliament had determined that companies ought not to stand in the same position as private individuals. A distinction had already been made by that House. A private individual might start in business as largely as ho pleased, and he had to pay nothing towards the revenue for so doing, but immediately a company was started the Stamp Department was down upon it. With reference to the beer tax, he might say he had been charged with being the originator of it, on account of the strong views he entertained on the subject generally. He begged to state that he could not lay claim to the credit of having proposed this tax. Last year it was proposed in that House that a beer tax should be levied, and the proposal was received with cheers. The first he heard suggest a beer tax was the hon. member' for Dunstau on the I7th of August, 1877, and Hr. Travers said that if a tax of £1 per hogshead were levied, the c would be a revenue from this source of £IOO,OOO. The proposal, as he said, was received with cheers in the House last session, and he supposed hon. members who were now objecting to it had changed their views in consequence of what they had read in the newspapers. To show that he had nothing to do with the origination of this tax, ho had mentioned tho names of tho hon. member for Dunstan and Mr. Travers ; and to prove also that Good Templars had nothing to do with its origination, he would state that on the morning after it was announced to the House he received a telegram from the W.C.T. of the South Island, stating that the Good Templar body wero opposed to the tax, because they thought the Government would rely too much upon it as a source of revenue. With regard to the tariff, the Government admitted that the Customs tariff could not be revised all at once, or in one session. If any fault at all was to bo found with the Government, it was that they wero attempting too much. The Government, however, were going step by stop. In tho first place, they proposed to diminish the duties on tho more important necessaries of life ; and in the second place, they proposed that special duties should tako the place of ad valorem duties. The hon. member then proceeded to defend the policy of tho Government with regard to counties, and said that if any hon. member objected to that policy it was his duty to come down with a distinct motion. If hon. members considered the Government policy a sham, let those hon. members give practical effect to their convictions, and instead of- voting for what they characterised as a sham policy, lot them bring down a vote of no confidence. It the Government were defeated, they could then go to the country, and it would be for tho people of the country to judge between those hon. members and the Government. Let their measures he considered on their merits, and ho felt sure that when they went to tho country tho members of tho present Government would got credit for bringing forward measures of reform that were calculated to do good to tho country. No other Government had ever proposed so many measures of reform as tho present Government had proposed. They knew- that

some of their measures would be distasteful to a great many hen. members,: hut that did not deter them from the performance of what they considered to be their duty. The Government had made up their mind on these measures, and on these measures they would stand or fall. (Cheers and cries of “ Question.”) Mr. GIBBS, at 12.15 a.m., moved the adjournment of tlie debate. • The motion for adjournment was declared to be carried on the voices. Mr. GEORGE called for a division. The motion for adjournment was negatived by 30 to 21. Mr. GIBBS said he was opposed to the proposed alterations of the tariff, because he did not consider they would confer any benefit on what was termed the poor man. He was generally opposed to the measures which the Government had introduced, but he would perhaps be forced into voting for the second reading of the Land Tax Bill, simply because he could not vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member fur Geraldine. If the Colonial Treasurer wanted money then he should propose a property tax. His Land Tax Bill would press unequally, and in a matter oi taxation the principle of exemptions was an unsound one. Altogether, the measures introduced by the Government did not commend themselves to the approval of the House, and he would oppose them, although he would vote for the second reading of this Bill; because he could not oppose the amendment. Mr. HXJRSTHOUSE regretted that the Government would not consent to an adjournment of the debate until next week, as their action forced hon. members into speaking without being prepared to address the House on the important subject now before the House and the country. The hon. member, in criticising the proposals of the Government, objected to any system of taxation that pressed unequally and unfairly on any class of the population ; and the revision of the tariff was nothing more than a blind for the working man, because that revision would not benefit him in any way. Mr. PYKE moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion was agreed to. The Hon. Mr. BALLANOE moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 11 a.m. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said this proposal was most unfair to those members who had gone away. Eleven o’clock was a most inconvenient hour, and committees would be sitting at that hour. No notice of the proposal had been given, and at that late hour it would be a most unfair thing to propose to sit at 11 a.m. Mr. PYKE said it was necessary that the debate should be terminated before hon. members went South, and even at the risk of postponing that trip the debate should be continued to a termination. It was for this reason that he intended to propose that the debate should be resumed at 11 a.m. After some discussion. The SPEAKER thought this a most exceptional proceeding, and more especially at so late an hour. Manifestly, a great many hon. members would be taken by surprise it the House ■adjourned till 11 a.m. iustead of 2.30 p.m. After some further discussion. The Hon. Mr. BALLANOE said that in deference to the opinion expressed by the hon. the Speaker he begged leave to withdraw his motion. The motion was withdrawn, and the House adjourned until 2.30 p.m.