PARLIAMENT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 783, 15 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

Wellington, October 15. In the Legislative Council yesterday, the debate on the Land Tax Bill was continued. Mr. Waterhouse announced his intention to vote for the second reading of this Bill, on the ground of expediency. He did not, however, approve of the Bill, but contended that the propertied classes already have more than a fair share of taxation. The statement that property did not bear its failshare of taxation was disgraceful. He thought it a mistake to single out any particular class for taxation. Speaking of the Beer Tax Bill, and its withdrawal in the other Chamber, he said it was not the first time beer had triumphed over brains. He thought the action of the Government in withdrawing the Bill had been a mistake. In concluding, he justified his vote for the second reading on the ground that he would not give an opportunity to the demagogue class to incite the passions of the people. Mr. George Buckley opx:>osed the Bill, speaking at some length. The Council then adjourned for dinner. At the evening sitting of the Legislative Council, the debate was continued by Mr. G. Buckley, who characterised Tax Bill as class legislation. He was giuuTthafc the Beer Tax and Income Duty Bill had been withdrawn. He was opposed to the exemptions under LSOO. He concluded by saying that with prudence in finance the tax might have been avoided, but it was too late now. He

should not oppose the second reading. Sir Dillon Bell thought, from the state of the Chamber, hut little interest was taken in the question. He deprecated measures of the last importance being rushed through the Council in the last week of the session, turning that Chamber into a mere vehicle of registration, like the old Parliament of France. He would support the second reading, because he considered it necessary to resort to direct taxation to enable us to pay our way. He went on to criticise the revenue and expenditure. There was a total loss of LIOO,OOO on the working of the departments for the year. Expended items in any one year should be confined to what could be raised in that year, and this the people had to learn by the presence of the tax-gatherer. He did not care one straw for the rights of the runholders, but the whole theory of this Bill was that the owner or the tenant should pay. Why then treat the pastoral tenants different from any other.