PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 695, 9 August 1870, Page 2

PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE

Friday, July 29. gold duties bill. On Mr Vogel moving that the Committee's report on this Bill, which transferred to the Provinces the power to regulate the gold duty, as also the fees to be paid on miner's rights, be adop'ed, Mr Kynnersley moved that the report be referred back to the committee in order to allow of the two new clauses inserted on the motion of the Colonial Treasurer being struck out, and he did so because they handed over to the provinces the dealing with about £IOO,OOO, or the interest on two millions, and besides perpetuated the curse of this over-governed country, double government; he held that if these clauses were carried, it would follow that the export duty on gold would be abolished in all the Provinces. If the protective duty passed that House which would press so hardly on the miner, he thought it would only be fair to relieve them of their burdens by abolishing the export duty on gold. The general effect of these clauses was to forego £IOO,OOO per annum. The Hon. Mr Richmond seconded the amendment. Mr Mai-andrew would oppose the amendment. The gold duties were provincial revenue, and he did not think that the House had a right to say that the provinces should dispense with it. Mr Baigent supported the amendment. Mr Barff would support the clauses introduced into the bill. The Hon. Mr Stafford would support the amendment. He could not see the propriety of delegating to any Provincial Council the power of levying export duties, and he would point out to those Superintendents of Provinces who had no goldfields within their boundaries that they could largely supplement their revenue by declaring that they had reduced the duty on gold, when they would get all the gold of the colony. The statement that this duty was not colonial revenue was in his opinion fallacious, as it was as much so as stamps, &c. He should strongly oppose the clauses, as he believed it was beyond the power of the House to carry out this course ; and further, he would warn the Hon. the Treasurer that he ran a very great risk of having the bill disallowed by the Queen in consequence of the introduction of these clauses, as by the protests and representations which would reach the Imperial Government, they would not be at all in the dark in the matter; and be might sav that he had seen a private letter from Lord Granville in which he requested that " Hansard " might be sent to him, so that they might expect that the Home Government would be quite aware of all the circumstances. Mr Gillies contended that the Assembly had a perfect right to delegate the powers given in this bill, and expressed his concurrence in the clauses. He did not think that the reduction of the gold duty was now advisable, but that power should be given to reduce it when it was found that the colony could afford it. Mr Kelly approved of the clauses. The Hon. Mr Fitzherbert said that the gold revenue was treated as provincial revenue. The ground upon which he would oppose the clauses was because he did not think it was proper to giye the power of levying duties to Provincial Councils, and also because there was such inconsistency is going into the money market to borrow money and at the same time reducing their income. He did not object to the mode, but he thought the time had not arrived for reductions to be carried out.

Mr Main was exceedingly glad to see these clauses brought down, as he would be enabled in his place in the Provincial Council to move the abolition of the gold duty; and he desired to thank the Hon. the Treasurer, as a member for the goldfields, for having brought down these clauses, and if he went back to his constituents he thought that the hon. member would be re-elected on those two clauses. Mr Creighton supported the clauses. Mr Collins objected to the favoritism which appeared to be shown to the miners, and also stated that he was opposed to handing over to the provinces the levying of gold duties, and should thereforefore vote for the amendment. Mr Bunny thought that the passing of these clauses would show whether the provinces could perform their duties, or whether they should be swept away, and therefore he should support them. The hon. Mr Vogel said he wished to correct the idea which had been expressed, that this measure was brought down as a measure to court popularity, as it was more than likely that he should not stand for the same constituency again. He thought the hon. member for Westland North was a most inconsistent young man, as he had a few days ago, in a most pathetic manner, spoken of the 10,000 miners who were so heavily burdened with taxes and imposts, and yet when they came down with a proposition to reduce a tax, he opposed it. He would point out that the reduction of this duty would make all the difference in the paying or non-paving of mining companies. The principle of those spending the money having to face the taxpayer was fully recognised bv him and he would go further, and say that he would rather let the provinces

perish if they were in the humiliating position of being afraid to meet the taxpayer. He hoped that the miners would see that the House had no wish to subordinate their interests to those of the other industries of the colony, but that there was every desire to advance those interests as far as possible. The amendment was declared to be carried, when a division was called for, with the following results : —Ayes, 34 ; Noes, 31. The amendment was therefore carried amid loud cheers. The House weut into committee < n the bill, when Mr Kynnersley moved that the first clause be struck out. Mr Gillies moved a further amendment, which would have the effect of removing the power of reducing the gold duty from the Superintendents and Provincial Councils, and place it in the hands of the Governor. Mr Stafford opposed the amendment, which he characterised as worse than the original clause. The hon. Mr Vogel said that he would not press the clauses, as it was not the wish of the House ; he thought that a compromise might be effected by taking away the pownr of the provincial authorities to reduce the gold duty and limit it to reducing the price of a miner's right from £1 to 10s. This, he thought was not a large or unconstitutional power to place in the hands of provincial legislatures. The Government would, therefore, not oppose the amendment of the hen. member for Westland North, on the understanding that the next clause should pass with the limit he had alluded to. Mr Dignan objected to the compromise as regarded the province of Auek--1 and, as it would interfere with the under. standing entered into with the native owners of land in that province, with whi>m it had been agreed that the price should be £l. Mr Kynnersley said that the £1 per year license fee did not press hardly on the miner, what they did want was one miner's right for the whole colony, and not to be obliged, as was the case on the Grey, where every miner had to take out two miner's rights, one for Nelson and one for Westland, although only a navigable river divided them. He might say in answer to the charge of inconsistency which had Jbeen made against him, that he had told his con. stituents exactly what he had said on this question in the House. Messrs Webster and Brandon opposed the compromise. Mr Gillies withdrew his amendment in favor of the compromise proposed by the Colonial Treasurer. The question for the striking out of the first clause was then put, and declared to be carried, when a division was called for, with the following result :—Ayes, 35 ; noes, 31. The clause was therefore struck out. Mr Haughton would suggest that the Government should withdraw the bill, as it was plain that the committee intended, headed by the goldfields 1 members, to perpetuate the taxation of the unfortunate miners, and he therefore hoped the Government would withdraw the bill, and leave these memhers to go back to the deluded constituents who had sent them there. The hon. Mr Vogel said as there appeared to be a strong feeling against these clauses, he would move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. The motion for reporting progress was then carried on the voices.