Later.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2980, 3 September 1878, Page 2

Later.

This dayj

v; Continuing debate on land Tax Bill, ; Mr McLean followed Mr Wakefield, and characterised the Government policy as a c jntradiction in itself, and at variance with the wants of-the colony., which he attributed ta Ministers junketing about on the stump during the recess. The alleged surplus shown by the Treasurer he contended was principally out of balances of loans. .-,.. Then their ,calcalatioiv of getting five millions 'of land revenue in .the , immediate future was .quite fallacious. Tbere-was'little? or* no- land ifundj in Canterbury v and the distur. : , bance would reduce ,the, value of the Waimate plain from which they expected; to get; half a million. He heartily approved of the changes made by the- Minister of'Wo ways and other matters. He was gladjto see Ministers had arrived at a true idea of the indebtedness of the colbnyj:which was put down-at twenty millions,^ though last year, when hounding down the late. Ministry; they made it 1 out to be 24 millions. He strongly deprecatid the way, Sijr Julius Vogel had been /treated in regard to the loan agency. He complained of the Government taking credit for reductions when none had been made. In fact, every department showed an increase. Some good men had been discharged, and new appointments made for political purposes. He was sorry they had departed from the principle he enunciated 1 before he became a member of the Minstry, viz., the withdrawal of subsidies. He criticised the alterations in the customs tariff at considerable length to show they were not calculated to affect the object in view, while the tax on joint stock companies would frighten away ■ capital to other colonies. It was monstrous to tax 'a ruuholder us a freeholder, and there would b- no end of difficulty in determining in cases of freeholders even what was the unimproved value of the land. He coiucided with what had

fallen from the hon. member for Geraldititt in reference to the beer tax, and as to the tax on joint stock companies .such an unjust bill would never be carried into law. The Government would, he was certain, withdraw that, and he wag ' sorry they ever proposed it. He dwelt at some length on the unfair operation of the tax, as pressing very heavily on local institutions,'such as Union Steam Shipping Company and various colonial insurance companies and banks, while foreign" associations were let off scot free. ( At the" present time there, were license fees, stamp duties, note duties and taxes, all falling Jieavily on these local institution. He would.not care in the least had the Government proposed to put a tax on all invested capital in circulation. It would then have lallen alike. He was afraid the Government was too theoretical —not sufficiently practical. Mr Hodnkiuson approved of the land tax, but disagreed with provision of the bill exempting certain lands, and- he thought the financial scheme of the Go- . vernment defective in that it failed to tax all property, tfe intendedwhenin.COM. mittee to get the exemptions remoWK^ because small farmers were mostly men of small means, who bad been brought out to the colony at the public expense, and bad as it were been sifted out of obscure poverty, and placed in a country . where their fortunes were secured. I Therefore they should not be exempted. Mr Mactarlane ' condemned the land tax, and wan Led an all round one. He found a good deal of fault with the proposals, but was not prepared for an amend* ment. , I ',i\ I'\

Dr Wallis criticised all the Government proposalsj and in conclusion charged the Government with waste* and extravagance, which, if they did riot stop, it would be their ruin.

The House rose at 11.45; * />,, r ;