THE PREMIER AT LEESTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 8247, 13 August 1887, Page 3

THE PREMIER AT LEESTON.

On Thursday night the Hon the Premier addressed a public meeting at the Leeston Town Hall, which was crowded, as many as a hundred of those present being ladies. On Sir Eobert’s appearing on the stage, ho was greeted with loud cheers. Mr Eennie, Chairman of the Road Board, presided, and briefly introduced the speaker. Sin Robert was, on rising, received with renewed cheers, and spoke to the following effect: —Ho was there by invitation, but not to advocate the claims of any candidate; all he wished to do was simply to put before the meeting the political position of the country. As he was one of a Government that had been accused of extravagance, he would speak first of the expenditure of his Government. Sir John Hall had challenged comparison between the expenditure of the year 18811882 and that of last year. Now it must bo remembered that compared with the year which Sir John claimed to have been one of economy, the taxation was now less, not only per head bub absolutely—(applause)—and this, although the population had increased by some 15,000 a year, making the present population 80,000 to 00,000 more, yet his Government had been asked, and been compelled, to do with less revenue. If he could show that this was the case it must surely be granted that his Government had been economical. (Applause.) In that room Sir John had said that the income for the year 18811882 was some =£300,000 less than it had been for the previous year, and that in March, 1882, there had been a surplus of .£200,000 over the expenditure; and this was quite correct, there was a surplus of £233,000. But Sir John Hall had gone on to say that compared with his (Sir John’s) administration, the present Government had been extravagant. During that year the Customs had given £1,4/0,107, the Property-tax £250,974, and the Beer Duty £58,535. Ho (Sir Robert) could not give the amount received from stamps separate from the receipts from the Post and Telegraph Departments, &c., but the three he had named were the principal sources of a revenue which amounted to a total of £1,779,636. If the year ending last March was taken, the revenue would be found to have been from the Customs. £1,285,704; from the Property Tax, £310,897 ; and from the beer duties, £53,493. Altogether the present Government’s revenue from taxation—the amount they had to do with—was absolutely £129,482 less than the Hall-Atkinson Government had had in their very economical year. (Applause.) That was nob all. His Government had had to spend £IOO,OOO more on Education than that department had required in the pattern economical year of Sir John Hall. (Applause.) As the number of children in the schools had increased his Government had to pay an increased capitation, but surely they did nob deserve to be called extravagant on that account. (Applause.) And this was not all. What had the Hall Government obtained out of loan for the keeping up of the Armed Constabulary. The total for ordinary current expenditure on? Defence, not for permanent works such as forts, was £133,218, from which had to be deducted the small sum of £12,500, which the Government had got out of loan ; and this would leave a difference of £l2O 718 received by the Hall Government more than his Government had received under the head of Defence. If to this amount was added the £129,482, the amount of increase in the taxation of the people, there would be£250,200, and so the surplus was very easily accounted for. If to this was added the £IOO,OOO additional expenditure on Education, it would he seen that the Hall Government had had an advantage of over £350,000. (Applause),

Then the interestonthe loan was increasing every year. In 1882 it was, in round numbers, a million and a half, and last year it was £ 1,642,000, independent of the sum to be paid under special Acts of the Legislature, such as for the conversion of stock, which ought fairly to be included. If there had not been a very careful and economical expenditure by his Government, there must have been a very large deficit under this condition of things. (Applause.) Sir John Hall said that his colleague Mr Bryce had made great savings in the Native Department. But the expenditure in this department in 1882 amounted to £24,000. Last year it was only ,£26,000, although there had been extra Land Courts, through which a larger quantity of land had passed than had over passed before. The present Government’s estimate for this year in this department was .£17,000. If Mr Bryce deserved praise for his economy, how much credit did not Mr Ballance deserve? (Applause.) Sir John Hall had given his colleagues the credit of being economical, but what had those colleagues done as soon as Sir John left them ? Major Atkinson, in his Financial Statement (page 12, B 2), said that the expenditure of the then next year would be increased, independently of the interest, by no less a sum than £298,000, thus showing an increase of nearly £300,000 in one year by the economical colleagues of Sir John Hall. (Laughter.) A comparison of the Financial Statements made on June 16, 1882, and on June 27, 1883, with the last Financial Statement, made on May 10, 1887, would verify the figures he had given. The position, therefore, was that the Hall Government, in their economical year had had a total of £129,482 more from taxation than his Government had last year, and if he had had that amount there would have been no deficit at all this year. [Sir Robert repeated details previously given to show that the proposed tariff of this year would have realised £IO,OOO less than the Customs realised in the pattern economical year, and also detailed the decrease in the expenditure of the various departments, with tho exception of those of Defence, Education, and Railways, and some very small items,] It had been said that the savings were on non-recurring votes. They were not so; but assuming that they we re, that meant that they did not usually appear on the Estimates, and, that being so, they should not be charged as specimens of extravagance. The Government should not have their Estimates, in regard to these items, compared with those of the economic year, But the amount of these non-recurring votes had been exaggerated. Instead of being £112,000, their total amount was only £67,173. Eliminating all the non-recurring votes there was still a saving of £85,093 for 1886-87. Tho savings had been made under the Civil Service Bill. [Sir Robert went into the details of the Bill, and showed bow comparative savings had also been made in the railway management.] It had been said that his Government had seized the Sinking Fund. He would explain this matter. The fact was that so much per cent of the loan had been paid towards a Sinking Fund. But it was seen that to borrow with one band and pay into a Sinking Fund with the other was no saving. At Home, able financiers had proved that the principle of the Sinking Fund was a mistake. In fact, his Government had only done what the Hall-Atkinson Government had proposed to do. This would be found on page 10 of the Financial Statement for 1879. [Sir Robert quoted Major Atkinson’s words.] It would therefore be seen that Major Atkinson had thought it should be done, but had not the ability to conceive how it should be done. [Sir Robert went on to explain the proposals of the Government for raising a revenue, repeating what he has on previous occasions said on this subject. He also repeated much of his former speeches on the Public Works policy, borrowing. Property tax. Railway rates, Freetrade, Village Settlements, Education, &c.] The Press now said that nobody was going to touch the Education, but not more than two weeks ago the Press Lad said that the cost was too great and that a Committee should be appointed to consider the question. He said, and he used the expression advisedly, it was dishonest for any Opposition journal to turn round and say that nobody was opposing the Education expenditure. Let them read the speeches of the Opposition members in Parliament and the leading articles of tho Opposition newspapers. The Press that morning had said that the vote could not be reduced. It had been said that over a person who expressed repentance there should be rejoicing, and he rejoiced over the repentance of tho editor of the Press, who had come round to his (Sir Robert’s) of thinking. (Laughter.) He would say nothing more about the past history of the Press , but those present could, if they liked, go home, read that day’s issue of the Press, and burn all the previous ones, together with the platform of the Political Reform Association, whose spokesman was Mr Acton-Adams. (Laughter.) It had been said in that ball that the Education system ought to be looked upon as a “ sacred ark.” He knew what had happened to a man who once meddled with a sacred ark. That man’s hand withered, and he (Sir Robert) hoped the same fate would befall the man who meddled with the Education system of New Zealand. (Applause.) [Sir Robert concluded a speech of nearly two hours with an eloquent panegyric on the benefits of a Free National Education, and on resuming his seat was loudly cheered for some minutes.] After Sir Robert had answered a number of questions, Mr Job Osborne moved a hearty vote of thanks to Sir Robert Stout for bis address.

Mr Lockbead seconded the motion, which was carried amid enthusiastic cheering. Sir Robert acknowledged the compliment, and moved a similar vote of thanks to the Chairman.

This was carried, and closed the meeting.