Later.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3002, 28 September 1878, Page 2

Later.

This day. After ten o'clock last night, the-Home continued in committee on the.Land Tax Bill. In reply to remarks against clause 4, Mr Ballanoe said this was the principle of the Bill, and the Government were hot so fond of their-seats Si to turn tail in Committee; they would not be worthy of confidence if they did. They believed this was. a right principle, that the House and the country were in favor of it, and they would stand or fall by the. result. The object of the Government was to get at the speculator and non-improver, and. to promote the interests of the improver of the land. Mrßolleston said that the financial proposals of the Government seemed to be without principle, and he could not vote for'any single item, and he was surprised to heap Mr Bryce's declaration, because last year he was one of those who turned.out the late Government mainly on the ground that they were not the only men who could govern the country. There r were no principles in the policy, which'was simply a number of the Attorney-Gene* ral's political "fads." ... 1 Mr Montgomery was quite aware of the difficulties of struggling farmers, bat as this was a revenue tax, the House ought not to forget there were large .and valuable properties in towns and suburbs would escape taxation. This was.especially unfair in view. of the exemptions up to. £500 which had been carried. However, he would be idclined to let the Ministry take the clause as it stood, and see how how it would work. He admired the Government for Baying they would stipk to their, principles, but at the sametime the Government must recollect that they had not brought down such measures. at their supporters had a right to expert*

and if their supporters fell away they must not blame their supporters but themselves for that.

Mr Wason said his principal objection was that if this system of valuation were adopted by the General Government, then it would also be adopted by the various local bodies in the colony, and that would be most perniciousin its results. A division was takes on the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause. Ayes 41, Noes 12. '

Ayes:—Baigent Ballance, Barff, Barton, Bastings, Brandon, Brown, J. C. (Tuapeka), Carrinfjton, DeLatqur, Dignan, Driver, Feld wick, Fisher, Fiteroy, George, Hamlin, Hislop, Hobbs, Hursthouse, Johnston, Joyce, Kenny, Macandrew, McMinn, Montgomery, Moss, Murray, Nahe, Ormond, Bees, Saunders, Stout, Taiaroa, Takamoana, Tawiti, Tole, Turnbull, Wallis, Whitaker, Wood, Woolcock.

Noes:—Beetham, Bowen, Gibbs, Gis« borne, Kelly, Richardson, Stevens, Sntton, Swanson, Teschemaker, Wakefield, Wason.

In reference to the sub-sections 2 and 3, Mr Ballance agreed to their being ■truck out, so as to leave it to the valuers to fix the valuation.

'Mr Murray objected to this course being adopted, but the sub-sections were struck out on the voices.

: In reply to Mr Steven's, the Hon. Mr Ballance promised to re-consider subsection 4, so as to meet the case of run holders whose runs were liable to be Selected. ■■-■' '. v „ ■■.; '.. ■ ' . '

( . The clausb as amended was agreed to. '*; ;V-;■■■'•Sorenil. \: clatises were postponed, and others passed with slight verbal amendment, and the House rose at.2.40.