Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2963, 14 August 1878, Page 2

The opposition suddenly raised at the meeting of burgesses on Monday night, when'Mr Ttenshaw commenced to speak on the rating of mining property and abolition of the gold duty, was entirely unfair and unwarranted. The discussion of (hat question would have been perfectly legitimate. The meeting was convened by the Mayor on a requisition from burgesses to discuss the desirability of sending a delegate to Wellington to pre mote the Thames Valley Railway Bill and other local wants; and the question of abolishing. tbe gold duty and substituting for it a tax on mining property, we contend, was a fair subject for discussion at that meeting. There may be, and there evidently is, a p&rty—we can scarcely designate them by that term, but we will say a coterie — who think that the question of the gold duty has been settled, or that if it is to be discussed again it must be at a meeting called for that purpose. Whatever opinions we may have advanced regarding this question, we should be sorry to assert that the buigesses have no further say in the matter," and .we protest against the howling opposition that prevented this question being discussed on Monday night, when Mr Eenshaw very properly introduced it. The meeting could not by the wildest stretch of imagination be called a meeting of burgesses. Some openly expressed their reasons for being present, namely, the expectation of "some fun." The fun came in at the latter end, and some might yet have reason to say with the frog " What was fun to you was death to me." The Borough is largely interested in the matter of the gold duty; that question is likely to be seriously considered in the present session of Parliament; and few will deny that the burgesses have a right to express an opinion on the abolition of the gold duty, as affecting themselves, at a public meeting called to consider the desirability of sending a delegate to Wellington to promote the interests of the Borough. In discussing this business and the turn affairs took at Monday's meeting," we sink ouri own views entirely j but we cannot ignore the fact that the Borough Councillors are almost unanimous in the belief that the abolition of the p;old duty would be a mistake, the Mayor being the only one we know of who would acquiesce in such a proceeding. The Government have plainly intimated that they will'throw the responsibility of abolition on local bodies deriving benefit . from the gold duty, and i% must strike any sensible person .as reasonable and fair that the members of the Borough Council should exercise some discretion in deciding the question. We are convinced that if Monday's meeting had not been unduly prolonged by unnecessary talk Mr Uenshaw's proposals would have been more patiently listened to, spite of the obtrusive interruptions of those persons who insisted that the gold duty question had been previously settled beyond all dispute, and could not be re-opened.