THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 49, 27 July 1874, Page 3

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(From a correspondent of ilia Press.) Wellington, July 21. The increase of the excise duty on spirits raised a five hours debate on Friday, which was unusually vigorous during the whole time it lasted. At the outset, MrMacaudrew, who constituted himself thcleader of the advocates of the distillers —a small compact body of a dozen or so at first, and mostly Otago men—wanted the whole matter referred to a Select Committee. That day had arrived Mr Cawkwell, the managing director of the Auckland distillery, whose pamphlet has been noticed in the “ Press,” and was more than once referred to during the debate, and Mr

Howden, the managing director of the Dunedin establishment; and the object of getting the committee was to obtain the evidence of those gentlemen and circulate it before the main question was debated. The House was a tolerably full one, over sixty members being in their seats ; and as far as I could estimate them, the component parts of the opposing forces were—the protectionists pur et simple ; moderate protectionists, free traders, and teetotallers. Abstractedly, the question was of colonial importance ; but it appeared to hinge most on provincial considerations. If you except the few who opposed because the Government did so, it will be found that the Otago members were as much swayed by the consideration of the benefit grain producers received f. ora the establishment of the distillery as anything else. Mr Thomson said as much, but Mr MacGillivray was unmistakably influenced by the fact that the existence of the distillery at Dunedin, meant the purchase of many thousand bushels of grain in the Riverton district. Mr Vogel, at the commencement of the debate, took a decided stand, from which the appeals of friend and foe for “ justice ” did not cause him to abate one jot. The duty of saying whether or not it was desirable that the taxation should bo increased, he said, belonged wholly or solely to the Government, which was responsible for the public purse, and while that was so, members must be content to follow the lead of the Government in such matters. This was pretty plain speaking, and the House being in a very sympathetic mood was received approvingly. It is really a pity Mr Vogel cannot always be in the House. As everyone knows he has’nt a colleague who can be of the slightest assistance in debate. Mr M'Leau wouldn’t interfere, if he were in his seat ; Mr Richardson will only attend to his affairs; and Messrs O’Rorke and Reynolds only serve to muddle anything they take up. Who could help contrasting the temper of the House on Friday night with what it was on the previous Wednesday, when Mr Reynolds moved the House should go into committee of ways and means. On Friday night the House was eager for business, and even Mr Reynolds was listened to. On Wednesday he was made a regular shuttlecock of. Well, as I have said, Mr Vogel insisted on the House first discussing and coming to a resolution on the main question, promising at the same time that when that was done such claims for compensation as the distillers might have, should be remitted to the Select Committee Mr Macandrcw was so anxious to get. He took advantage of the opportunity to give his own opinion on the broad question of encouraging distillation— The Distillation Act was a mistake; it was passed with an excellent intention, and with the idea that it would very much foster the agricultural interest ; whereas it was very doubtful if it had done or was likely to do so. A great deal of grain consumed for distilling purposes was sometimes imported from outside New Zealand. A question worthy of consideration in committee was, whether it would not be desirable to abolish the whole thing ? If so, it might possibly cause the Select Committee to consider under what circumstances the distillers would be prepared to give up distillation altogether. He did not think they could offer to buy up the buildings, plant, Ac., neither was it desirable to entertain such a proposal ; but the business, if it had been a profitable one, must be of some value, and if a moderate sum, which would be recouped to the revenue in the course of two or three years, would induce the parties interested to give up distillation altogether, then the payment of compensation might be desirable. Not only did distillation cause a considerable loss of revenue, but a departmental expenditure for looking after the distilleries of over £IOOO. Mr Vogel further counselled the House to act upon the advice of the law officers of the Government rather than upon generous impulses, for let it be remembered the Attorney-General’s opinion was on the table, and was to the effect that while there was no doubt there was a substantial agreement between the Government and the distillers, it was not one of those agreements under which it was usual to give compensation. But Mr Tyke was for pressing for a committee, until Mr J.G. Gillies pointed out that if such a course were adopted, the effect would practically be to shelve the whole question for the session, which, of course, no one wished it should be. He, therefore, withdrew his amendment, and the House considered Mr Macandrew’s amendment as against the Government resolution. The distillers view of the question was so fully put by Mr Macandrcw, that it will serve to make'the matter better understood if I give his remarks :—The petition he presented to the House the other day alleged, and he believed the fact would bo proved, that in the Dunedin distillery £BO,OOO had been and was at this moment invested, He believed it could be also proved that no adequate return had hitherto been derived from that investment. Not only so, but if the proposal before the House were carried out a positive loss would result to the company, and he presumed the same would apply to the Auckland distillery. He would read the following extract from a letter that accompanied the petition which would show the case exactly :—“ In our petition we have not mentioned the subject of compensation, but wc can tell you we will be glad to shut up the concern and accept your compensation. We fully authorise you to say so. There are only one or two facts to which we beg your attention, viz., that the stock of spirits now in hand, and which will last over two years, cost us Gs per gallon, as our books will show. Our selling price for wholesale quantities is 7s, leaving a margin of Is per gallon, out of which travelling expenses and bad debts have to be deducted. Thus, if Is is added to the duty of 1875, as proposed, wc will be left with stock to be sold at an absolute loss. It will take at least three years before we can possibly expect to be in a position to stand an increase of duty, and then it would require to be a very gradually increasing scale : unlcssthis is done the business must be abandoned to a certainty.” He was sure if the matter was gone into ns it ought to be in fairness, the House would not consent to perpetrating an injustice on persons who had invested largely in this undertaking. The mistake that had been made was in refusing to fix the time when this differential duty should be modified. Had that been fixed at the time the Act was framed at less than ten years no distillery would have been started now. In fact, if he remembered rightly, ten years was considered to be the necessary time ; and he had based the resolution of which he had given notice upon that assumption. It seemed to lie a' popular fallacy to suppose that diatii-

Icrics were very paying businesses that fortunes were being made by them ; yet the fact appeared to be quite otherwise. There was a general shrug of (he shoulders to the right" of Mr Macandrew when he asserted that the distilleries were anything but profitable concerns, and at a later period of the debate, some lion member (1 forget whom) made a point by askitig the member for Port Chalmers to reconcile his statement with the assertion of the Commissioner of Customs that the revenue lost £86.000 a year by distillation. Mr Reynolds made a very good speech. Ho showed pretty plainly that both distillery companies before taking up their licences, had full notice of the intention of the Government at some future time to recommend Parliament to increase the excise duty ; but to Auckland the fullest intimation to that effect was given, for on May 20, 1870, the day after application was made for a licence, the inspector of distilleries wrote :

“ With reference to that part of the Act, however, which fixes the rate of duty on spirits distilled within the colony, I am to inform yon that in the event of your undertaking the business of a distiller, and a reduction being made on the rate of import duty on spirits, you must not calculate upon a corresponding reduction in the excise duty, as the Government, whatever rate may hereafter be fixed on for the Customs duty, will not be prepared to recommend to the Legislature that the excise duty should be lower than it is at present, whilst it may be found necessary to increase it.” So far Mr Reynolds bad it all. Figures can be made to prove anything, and Mr Reynolds made them prove that colonial distillation meant a large loss to the revenue, which would become enormous if the existing excise duty was continued.

The quantity of spirits distilled from the commencement of the operations of the two distilleries in the colony up to the 81st of March last was 21)1,460 gallons from all sources, and from grain alone26B.GSO gallons. The amount of grain used in the manufacture of those spirits was 134,066 bushels. The loss to the revenue from the distillation from grain amounted to £80,606 11s, which showed that on every bushel consumed by the distilleries the colony bad to pay a bonus of a little over 11s ll’pi (hear, hear), or a differential duty between imported and colonially manufactured spirits ’of nearly 2s nor gallon. It had been argued that this was a native industry. That was true, but it was very questionable to what extent the object for which the Bill was passed had been carried out. He had taken the trouble to ascertain how many hands were employed in the two distilleries, and found that the Auckland employed live, and the Dunedin one twenty-three, or twenty-eight in all. Of course it was stated that employment was given to a large number of people in the production of grain to be used in the distilleries. But, as had been stated, a large proportion of the grain consumed had been imported—it was not all grown in the colony. Of course the department was not in a position to know what proportion had been imported, and what was the produce of the colony. The loss to the revenue on molasses amounted to £6787 4s ; on sugar, £490 2s ; and from beer, £456 ; making a total £7731 6s. But there had to be deducted the Id duty paid on 355,8591bs of sugar used—£l49s 4s lid —leaving the actual loss to the revenue on sugar, molasses, &c., £6236 11s, which added to the £80,606 14s loss on grain, made a total loss to the revenue since the commencement of distillation up to March Blst last, of £86,842 15s Id. He had another statement of what had been lost to the revenue during the year 1873, on colonially manufactured spirits. 69.165 gallons at 6s differential duty amounted to £20,749 10s, less the duty on sugar and molasses—--27,734 lbs at Id or £lls 11s 2d —made a total loss during the year of £20.633 19s lOd. It would be borne in mind, that at the first starting of the distilleries there was a very little spirit manufactured for consumption, therefore for some time there was little or no loss to the revenue. But it had gone on increasing gradually. He had a statement made up yesterday for the quarter ending June 30th last. During the quarter 22,529 gallons were manufactured, and the loss to the revenue, £6758 14s, equal to £27,034 IDs per annum. The longer these distilleries enjoyed the advantages of the Act the greater would bo the loss to the revenue. [Hear.] Although a more guess, he believed the loss during the present year might possibly reach somewhat about £50,000 ; perhaps next year it would come up to £75,000, until ’ by and bye the Customs’ revenue would be swept away. The Commissioner of Customs’ figures wore challenged by Mr Macaudrevv, Mr Pyke, Mr Stafford, and Mr Thomson, but the main opposition to the resolution was in continuation of Mr Maeandrew’s line of argument. Except in one or two instances, no speaker defended colonial distillation. The contention of the minority was that it was unfair after encouraging the establishment of a “ new industry” to cut from under it at a moment’s notice the advantages given to it in the first instance. “ Reasonable notice,” it was urged by some, should have been given ; others said it would only have been justice if both import and excise duties had been raised, and the imported and the home-made article placed on an equal footing, while Mr Pyke solus insisted that the proposed increase was nothing short of repudiation. And the tone of the speeches on the other side was, as Mr Vogel had said at the commencement, that the Distillation Act was a mistake, and the sooner colonial distillation was put an end to the better. Mr Sheehan made a point by tolling the protectionists that the result of this attempt to carry their crochet into force should be a warning to them. The end of the debate was, as you know, that the Government carried their resolution by 36 against 25 —rather Mr Macandrew’s amendment was negatived, and the original question agreed to without division.^ There were a couple of amusing incidents in the debate. Mr Swanson stated that the number of employes in the Auckland distillery was seventeen, and not five as stated by Mr Reynolds. Mr Thomson (Olutha) considered' himself justified in assuming that the rest of the figures quoted by the Commissioner of Customs were capable of proportionate expansion, and with the utmost saruj fro id he proceeded to argue that the distilleries were very useful, since they gave employment to so many hands. “In Auckland they employ fifteen and in Dunedin one hundred,” but the House couldn’t stand such a stretch of imagination as this, and fairly laughed Mr Thomson down. Then Mr Lnckie put his foot in it splendidly. Mr Header Wood, in an early part of the debate, condemned the Distillation Act, and recommended its immediate repeal. Then up lose

the member for Nelson city, big with the consciousness of having made an important discovery, proceeded as he thought to impale the member for Parnell, and with becoming gravity proceeded to quote “Hansard” to show that, in 1868, Mr Wood had expressed exactly opposite views to those to which he had just given utterance. New members chuckled, bnt old saws were gravely silent, until Mr Wood rose, and in his best manner explained as he was not a member in 1868 he was at a loss to conceive how the extract read by Mr Luckie could have referred to him. Then the “ old ’uns” literally shook their sides, and Mr Luckie’s discomfiture was complete, for the fact was it was another Wood—once a Superintendent of Southland—and not the member for Parnell, who had delivered himself as quoted by Mr Luckie. Then Mr Stafford was caught tripping. He chaged Mr Vogel with having originated the six shilling duty ; but the latter, when the opportunity arrived, quoted the House journals to prove that Mr Stafford’s Government had proposed eight shillings ; that a member (Mr Dignam) had moved five shillings as an amendment, and that six shillings was accepted as a compromise. But it was reserved to the member for Bruce (Mr Murray) to excite a peal of almost uncxtiuguishable laughter. He informed the House that he believed people lived here as they did in Scotland, “on that which the country produced and on each other.” Now Mr Murray i one of the lean kind ; and the bare suggestion that he was addicted to cannabalistic habits would have made a hypochondriac laugh. But Mr Murray is determined to show the country that a Scotchman can not only enjoy a joke, but can be euilty of perpetrating one. It was only the other day that he made the House roar again, by stating that in bis opinion it was desirable that the population should be allowed to increase in a natural manner.

The Budget of 1874-5 has been made. This year the statement has been made earlier than for many sessions past ; and it was the shortest, and I take leave to think the most successful, Mr Vogel has ever made. It need hardly say every member at present in Wellington was in his place ; and as this is one of the occasions on which the public muster strongly, the galleries were crowded. At half T past seven, Mr Vogel began, and for one hour and a quarter be spoke with the air of a man who knew he controlled the position. “ I told you it would be so ” was the burden of the song as sung to Iris supporters,” and “ will you believe me now ” the strain in which he addressed his opponents. Of course there has not been sufficient time for members to weigh the speech and the policy sketched in it ; bnt on the whole it is considered highly satisfactory. A surplus of £207,000, which is unparalleled in the colony’s history, would close the mouths of most quasi-grumblers. The extreme interest with which Mr Vogel was listened to was noticeable. Now and then he met with responsive cheers, as when he acknowledged that the ad valorem duties had yielded the increase which the opposition of last session declared they would, aud when he declared that defence expenditure must be to a large extent a permanent charge. Didn’t the House prick up its cars when the Premier came to the question of provincial borrowing. The burly Superintendent of Otago was all ears then. And how dexterously Mr Vogel has snuffed out of existence the new batch of little pigs at the moment of their conception you will have seen by that portion of the speech dealing with provincial borrowing which was fully telegraphed to you. But how hardly and yet quietly he hit Mr T. B. Gillies. “ See how he mismanaged the affairs of Auckland, to bring that large province into a state of bankruptcy; crqo what would the colony have been brought to if he had controlled its finances.” was in effect the question put the House. Only once did Mr Vogel descend to bathos, and that was in the midst of his exordium, when contrasting the New Zealand of 1860 with the New Zealand of 1874, he said the difficulty of the Government had been to know what to do with its surplus. A visible smile went round the House, and even Mr Vogel’s colleagues joined therein. The proposal to increase the salaries of the civil servants met with general approval, jbut a good many think it might have been a little larger. The Premier at the conclusion of his speech was loudly cheered.

The long expected Polynesian papers were laid ‘on the table yesterday, and from the encouragement the Premier received in the few remarks he thought it necessary to make on the subject, I should say the House will be prepared to discuss the scheme this session.

Don’t be surprised if information should reach you by telegraph one of these days that half a dozen ornaments of the Lower House have been carried from this world. If they are not, it will not be the fault of those who have charge of the internal arrangements of the Lower Chamber. Day after day members are complaining of the detestable manner in which the House is kept, and yesterday the first thingJMr Speaker was troubled with was to receive interminable growls from members on all sides ; first about imperfect heating, next concerning the acoustic properties of the hall, aud lastly about the control of the galleries. Mr G. B. Parker, as chairman of the House Committee, brought under notice how in his endeavor to increase the temperature of the hall from 43deg to something like its natural and a bearable condition, the man in charge of the heating apparatus had so put on steam that, as Sir J. O. Wilson put it, hon members were like the American “ sitting on the safety valve.” Major Atkinson suggested the introduction of gas stoves, aud another hon member said it was fast coming to it that members would have to clothe themselves a la Russ. Now while this chorus of complaints was being levelled at the chair, a still greater one was being demonstrated. None of the speakers to the left of the chair could be heard by those on the right, and rice versa, The curtains are to be taken down, but no one believes it will have a beneficial effect. Mr Steward said it might improve matters if the “ Punch and Judy box,” yclept the chair, were banished, which did not please Sir Francis, who with unanswerable logic, told the House that if they could’nt have what they wanted they must take what they got. But Mr Richardson says the Government will do all they can to improve matters, and we must be content with that promise. There have been some slight discussions in committee wlvch provoked a few items of interest. Win n the Post Office Savings Bank Bill was in committee Mr Brown (Ashley; said that, the Banks and Post Offices suffered by the facilities the Post Office Savings Banks offered for transmission of mouey from one hand to another; and Mr Vogel

said he couldn’t see any harm was done by the system, which would be continued. On the Justice of the Peace Bill Mr O’Rorke admitted that there was a great deal of force in the argument of Mr Bees, the prosecuting counsel in the recent Auckland case of Harris v Macfarlane, that J.P.’s who did not attend a stated number of sittings of the Courts of Petty Sessions in their districts, were properly off the roll. He further said the Governor would either have to cancel the commissions of those gentlemen, or the Government would have to bring in a Bill to amend the law.

Mr Vogel yesterday obtained leave to introduce his new Licensing Bill. If you turn up the Premier’s speech of last session on the subject, you will be able to gather a pretty tolerable idea of the shape the new Bill will take. July 22. The budget speech still forms the chief topic of conversation in political circles, but no definite idea can be arrived at as to how it has been received. It is not anticipated there will be any opposition to the financial proposals of the Government, though they are sure to be much debated. Wellington and Otago are anything but satisfied with their treatment; and if the state of the House had encouraged such a combination, which it does not, I think it extremely probable Mr Macandrew and Mr Fitzhcrbcrt would have joined forces and endeavored to have got a larger plum than Mr Vogel is inclined to give them, Auckland professes to resent the reproachful terms in which ■he is spoken of, but its members know full well that she is being handsomely treated. With the £IOO,OOO with which the Government proposes to assist her, the works authorised by the Auckland Provincial Council, which till now were mythical, will be put in progress. The business to-day opened with a breach of privilege being raised. Mr T. Kelly, of Taranaki, brought under the notice of the House an article which appeared in the “Taranaki News” of the 14th, in which charges were made against him of a character that, had they been true, would have necessitated his resignation of his seat. But the House didn’t appear to concern itself much about the matter, and Mr Kelly was told if he had been unfairly attacked he had better seek redress in the law courts. Then, the questions in the Order Paper disposed of, the House discussed Mr Sheehan’s motion for a readjustment of the representation. Tha arguments used by the mover were mainly those brought forward last session by Mr O’Conor when moving in the same direction. A very strong case was made out in favor of the Thames, which has only one member to its fifteen thousand Inhabitants, while as Mr O’Neill said, sixty members of the House represents under 1000 inhabitants each. The speeches were all on one side, and their tenor that it was advisable some alteration should be effected before the expiry of this Parliament. Mr Swanson, who is very outspoken on all occasions, was terribly so on this, and declared with unusual vigor that the only hope of getting the present “ scandalous ” representation altered was a mistake, the fate of the Government depended upon it, and then no doubt it will be attended to quick enough. Mr Vogel promised the matter would be dealt with next session, and as you already know, carried the previous question by a majority of three, Mr T. L, Shepherd ought to be a happy man since he carried his Goldmining Bill over its second reading with such flying colors. He actually found a seconder in Mr Pyke, the most bitter opponent of the measure last session. How great is the change that has come over the dream of the hon member for Wakatip, can be imagined from the fact that he declared it to be a really superior Bill. After that, all opposition, if any had existed, was disarmed. Having so many times introduced it, Mr Steward could find nothing new to say in again asking the House to pass a Bill to legalise marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. He argued that he was justified to urge as a reason why the Bill should pass, that no single petition against the measure had been presented to Parliament, and said in conclusion that so long as he had the House at his back he would continue to urge the passing of the Bill, until he succeeded in removing an obstruction unjustified by scripture or expediency. The previous question was moved by Mr McGillivray, who repeated the stock arguments of the theologian, and seconded by Mr O’Eorke, who, with Mr Walter Johnson, the only other speaker, opposed the Bill, because their religious belief taught them to regard marriage with a deceased wife’s sister with “ utter abhorrence.” The second reading of the Bill was carried in a thin House by 20 against 9. Mr Holloway, the representative of the English Agricultural Laborers’ Union, is here just now, and visits the interior of the province next week. He speaks in the highest terms of Canterbury and Otago, as fields for settlement, with a slight preference for your province. I have read his description of his journey overland to Hokitika, and certainly he has not been insensible to the beauty of the scenery about the Bealey and the dividing range. His diary will, I believe, be published in Dunedin after he leaves the colony.