THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. GOVERNMENT VICTORY. Wellington, August 17.

Te Aroha News, Volume VIII, Issue 395, 21 August 1889, Page 5

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. GOVERNMENT VICTORY. Wellington, August 17.

SIR G. GREY'S PROPOSALS. Sir G. Grey said the Property Tax Bill was designed to regulate and promote the interests of large landholders. Tne essence of the Land Tax was that it enabled the State to get at the unearned increment, which rightly belonged to the public. So long as the property tax existed so long would it be impossible to get from the land the share it ought to contribute to the revenue. At considerable length Sir George argued in favour of the taxation of absentee landholders and bondholders. He went on to Bhow that it was quite possible to i raise enough revenue from the land and income tax. On a fair calculation an income tax would yield £130,000. A land tax should be levied upon the unimproved value of the land. This he estimated was now close on eighty millions and a moderate tax would bring in £150, 000. This with some £20, 000 proposed to be levied from loans raised by local bodies would make£3oo,ooo, within £58,000 of the amount required, and be was sure that a good and economical Government could easily make that saving. It was his idea to continue the property tax until such time as this could be conveniently introduced.

OTHER SPEAKERS. Mr Tanner defended the Government at considerable length, and spoke in favour of the property tax. Mr O'Conor declared his support of the Government, saying that the property tax was a mere catch vote trickery. Mr Stuart Menteath spoke at considerable length, condemning the general policy of the Government. He, however, argued in favour of the property tax. Mr Lawry said he was going to record his vote against a Government he had the greatest respect for. He ridiculed any Government Mr Ballance could form. For practical purposes Mr Moss's amendment was useless, but because it condemned the property tax he was going to follow the hon. gentleman into the lobby. He condemned the House for not backing the Ministry up in their endeavour to obtain retrenchment. Mr Cadman declared that at the next election no Auckland candidate in favour o£ the property tax could hope to be returned. He showed how injuriously the Act worked on the golfields.

FREE TRADE PARTY. Some twenty members of the free trade party, principally supporters of the Government, held a meeting yesterday afternoon to consider the position, when, after some discussion, it wa& resolved (Mr Barron dissenting) — " That, inasmuch as the abolition of the property tax might, in the present financial condition of the colony, entail a further increase of Customs duties, ib is not desirable that the free trade party should support the amendment of the member for Parnell."

THE DIVISION. There was great excitement over the division last night. The previous evening the Government were, as they thought, in a majority, but yesterday many things got rather shaky ior them, and speculation for a long time ran high. Yesterday was, as regarded the debate, a regular field day for the Auckland members who held the floor of the House nearly the whole of the time. At a quarter past one the division was taken, and as I prognosticated the result was a victory for the Government by 37 to 33, the announcement of which was received by the Oppssition with cheers. The following is the division list :— Ayes, 37 : Messrs Allen, Sir H. Atkinson, Buchanan, Carroll, Cowan, Dodson, Fergus, Fulton, Graham, Hall, Hamlin, Harkness, Heslop, Hobbs, Humphreys, Jackson, McArthur, McKenzie, Marchant, McGregor, Mills, Mitchelson, Moat, O'Conor, Rhodes, Ross, Russell, Samuel, Saunders, Seymour, Downie Stewart, Stewart Menteath, Taipua, Tanner, R. Thompson, Valentine, Wilson. Noes, 33 : Messrs Ballance, Barron, Buxton, Blake, Brown, Cadman, Duncan, Feldwick, Fisher, Fitchetb, Fraser. Goldie, Hutchison, Joyce, Lance, Larnach, Lawry, Loughrey, J. McKenzie, Monk, Moss, Pavata, Perceval, R. Reeves, Seddon, Smith, Steward, Taiwhanga, Taylor, T. Thompson, Verrall, Walker, and Ward. Pairs: — Ayes: Ormond, Fish, Bruce, Pyke, Anderson, Hodffkinson, Scobie Mackenzie, G. F. Richardson, J. B. Whyte, Izard and Newman. Noes : Kelly, Withy, Kerr, Fitzherbert, E. Richardson, Grej, Grimmond, Guinness, Turnbull, Jones, W, P. Reeves.

AFTER THE DIVISION. After the division list Mr R. Reeves remarked upon the manner in which the Opposition had acted together in spite of the Premier's taunt that they were disorganised and irresponsible larrikinrf. He also referred to the manner in which the Government had secured votes. Taiwhanga intimated that if a Native Bill, now before the Upper House, came down he would stonewall it. The second reading was then agreed to. On the motion to fix the committal Mr Seddon. wished to move an amendment to the effect that a change should be made in the incidence of taxation j and a land and income tax substituted. This was ruled ouo of order. Mr Fisher wished to know what opportunity he would have for traversing the action of Mr Harkness. Mr Fisher was ruled out of order several times, and eventually said he would speak on the subject at a proper time. Mr Turnbull said that if Mr Harkness moved his amendment in favour of a land and income tax the Opposition would walk out to show their ("Contempt " Mr Fisher), not their opinion of him. It on the other hand Mr Seddon moved it, they would support it. Mr Seddon hoped none of them would say anything that they might be sorry for, and he pointed out that the main question was not disposed of. He intimated his intention of moving an amendment which the Speaker refused to allow to be mentioned. Committal was fixed for next sitting day, and the House rose at 2 a.m. If the decision of the House had gone against the Government we should have had a dissolution immediately, as it is not likely Sir H. Atkinson would have given the other side an opportunity of forming a Ministry. If they had done so the Opposition would not long have remained unchallenged. The Auckland phalanx of property tax-haters like Mr Ballance's party even less than they do Sir H. Atkinson's. They could at any time turn the tables, and if it had been possible to wring important concessions regarding the property tax from a defeated Premier, there is little doubt they would have done so, and joining forces with the Government party, soon have ousted the Ballance-Larnach combination from office. The next great- tight --will probably be over Sir George Grey's amendment.