THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 44, 27 November 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1871.

The debate on the Address in reply to bis Honor’s speech although tame, was not altogether devoid of interest. Several questions wore touched upon by the speakers which had been skilfully evaded by the Executive in framing the Address, and no doubt as the session progresses, the attention of the Council will be specially directed to most of these. It was quite apparent that the Executive did not want a debate on their policy, and to that end maintained silence, as far as was possible, the only member of the Government who spoke being Mr Sheehan, who replied, or more properly, apologised for not replying, to Mr Creighton’s criticism on the speech. Mr Ellis was not replied to in any way, although his speech was not without point. lie complained of the action of the Government in committing the province to an expenditure of £42,000 for the Kaipara railway, without the consent of the Council, and argued with considerable force, that the Kaipara Railwav Rill having been disallowed by the Governor, the appropriation of £20,000 for its construction had lapsed. Xo doubt whatever can exist as to the intention of the Provincial Council on this subject last session. The Council declined to make any appropriation for the construction of the Kaipara railway, until after the Rill had passed, defining! the powers of the Executive in the matter. Rut no sooner had the Governor been advised to disallow the Rill, on technical grounds, no doubt, than the Provincial Executive fell back on the Appropriation Act, and on the strength of a contingent vote of £20.000. accepted a tender for the work for double that sum. If such an abuse of power is to be overlooked by the Council, as Mr Ellis said, it had far better give up the attempt to control the public expenditure. Mr Mitchell said a few words on the Address, his criticism being somewhat of a trifling nature, when such impor-

taut interests as those of tlio Goltlljelds were at stake. The allusion {to t-hfe .Goldfields in tlic Speech w;f\not at.jtfl Satisfactory. It was not put forw.ara as it ought to have been, that! but foT the revenue derived from the Thames,-' the province must have gone to the wall during the current year, lint although this was not stated by Mr Mitchell, it was prominently alluded to by Mr Creighton; who declared that the provincial institutions were now sustained by the goldfield. This being so, be thought much greater prominence should have been given to the mining interests in the speech. He also alluded to the Goldfields District Act, which was passed last session, and which so materially affected the various interests at the Thames and . Coromandel. Some notice of this enactment, and also of the Act empowering the Superintendent to lease mineral lands in the province, should have been made in the speech of his Honor. The increased taxation, which pressed so heavily on this province and was, in fact, partial in its operation, affecting our mining and towns population, was not so much as alluded to, any more than the attempt made by the Government to change the constitution of the Council, without consulting its wishes or the wishes of the constituencies of tlic province.

When we refer to the statement of of income and expenditure submitted to the Council, the truth of the remarks relative to the goldfield will be all the more apparent. We find that although the income from “ goldfields revenue'’ has fallen short of the estimate, yet there was an actual excess on the head of “ gold duty,” of £22,423. And if we add to this amount a sum of £8,943, being a refund of money charged in excess by the General Government, we have a total of £31,3(5(5. which must be treated as exceptional income for the current year. Now, deducting £31,30(5 from the estimated revenue of 1871, we find that hut'for the increased gold export from the Thames, and the wind-fall above alluded to, the provincial revenue would have fallen short of the estimated amount by £2(5,7)72. There is a sum of £O,OOO odd of capitation money which we might - credit the Executive with is as much as they included it in their estimate of revenue, although warned that the grant would not be continued ; but even making this allowance, it must he evident to everyone that the Provincial Government of Auckland exists chiefly through the revenue derived from the Thames. It is to be regretted, therefore, that Mr Beveridge withdrew his motion for a return of all sums received by the Government on account of goldfield revenue, since Ist January last, and of all sums expended by the Government since that date. We think he should have persisted in his motion, notwithstanding the promise of Mr Hheehan, the goldfields Secretary, that lie would supply every information. The information, embodied in such a return, would have been presented in a succinct form, whereas the “ fullest information” which Atr Sheehan is prepared to give may be furnished in such a manner as to render it practically valueless. The published accounts show, up to the 31st day of October, of the presentyear, the sum of £7,000 would cover all tlie expenditure on the goldfields on public works, the departmental expenditure being considerably over £ 1,000. And yet the revenue from gold duty, and tlic various sources in tlic Wardens’ departments amounted to £39,307 9s lOd. It may, therefore, he very fairly asked, what has the present Provincial Executive done for the development of the goldfield ? Where are the new works initiated or in progress ? We look for them in vain. They arc invisible to all eyes here or at Coromandel, —the latter district, so intimably associated with us, being retarded through the culpable negligence of the local authorities. The votes for works on the goldfields have not, in all eases, been judiciously spent; but when the income derived from the field is set on the one side, and the expenditure on the other, we think wc are justified in inquiring what has become of the balance. There is no use in being reticent in this matter. The goldfields members supported the Executive. They placed them in office because their predecessors did not spend enough money in tlic development of the goldfield. Are they prepared to say that they now endorse the conduct of the Executive ? In what shape or way have these gentlemen fulfilled the expectations formed of them? To our minds, they have signally failed in the discharge of their public duty. The failure may he attributed to want of capacity, but that they have failed egregiouslv, no one can deny. Wc await, with some degree of interest, further reports from the Auckland Provincial Council.