New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1871. THE WEEK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 45, 2 December 1871, Page 11

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1871. THE WEEK.

It was only right that the opening of such an important work as the Wanganui Bridge should have heen fittingly celebrated. What a different aspect that town exhibited on the occasion, to that which it wore only three short years ago ! How great is the chang e since then that has taken place in the position and prospects of the settlers of Wanganui and its immediate vacinity. The ceremony which took place on Wednesday last, inaugurated a policy of peace and of progress, of public works, and of material prosperity. The Hutt Bridge is being rapidly proceeded with ; and wo are happy to learn that Mr Baird, the Provincial Engineer, has received instructions to survey the sites of bridges which it is proposed to im- . mediately erect over the Tauherenikau and Waingawa, rivers in the Wairarapa. The grant to road boards, it will be seen, has infused life and vigor into those useful bodies, and a great number of roads are about forthwith to be commenced under their auspices. The early commencement of the Wairarapa railway has aroused the public from their apathy, and promises great things for the future, not dreamt of by the colonial.stick-in-the-muds, and antidiluvian croakers. Let us trust that the next year will be marked not less by rural, social, and mental than it is sure to be by industrial and commercial progress.The members of the Legislative Council in their action relative to the rating clauses in the Highway Boards and Railway Acts, like the English aristocracy relative to the land tax, have made use of their Parliamentary powers to protect and subserve their own interests. The Englishland tax, at the present day, is very much as it was a century and a half ago. Yet since that period, the public revenue of England has risen from less than £4,000,000 to more than £'70,000,000, and the I rents of landlords from less than £10,000,000 to more than £55,000,000. It is true that the land is burdened, in addition, with a very large amount of local taxation, in the shape

of county, highway, and poor rates, as well as with other charges ; but these are not paid by the landlord, but invariobly by the tenant. The land in England pays only a thirty-second part of the general taxation, while in France it pays nearly the sixteenth part of the whole taxation. Since the commencement of the present century the annual value of land has more than doubled in England. Before that period the land tax was voted annually ; but in 1799 it was converted into a fixed and perpetual tax, according to a valuation made a century previously ! It is worth while to enquire what was the composition of the House of Commons when this nice arrangement was adopted. It was composed of upwards of 200 Irish peers, or sons of English peers, about the same number of landed gentry, and only about fifty who represented the mercantile and trading classes, in a House comprising, in all, about 550 members. In other words, when the land tax was fixed permanently at the comparatively trifling sum based on an assessment made more than a century before, when landed property was not half the value it had attained in 1799, and when the rents of landlords were not a fifth of the amount they have now arrived at, the peers and landed gentry of England comprised more than eightelevenths of the members who then composed the House of Commons, and who were consequently directly interested in making this flagitious arrangement. These facts are authen. tic, and they show how desirable it is for all interests to be represented fully and fairly in Parliament, if the public burdens are to be equitably apportioned. The additional taxes imposed on cereals, cheques, orders, and receipts, though trifling in amount, will have the effect of opening the eyes of the people on a subject in which they have not hitherto taken much interest. An , absurd statement has been going the round of ■ the Opposition Pres 3 to the effect, that the people of New Zealand are the most heavily taxed people under the sun. If thi3 is the case, it speaks volumes with regard to their material prosperity ; for more than half the revenue is derived from taxes which may be deemed to be voluntary, and self-imposed, seeing that they are levied on commodities which the people could produce for themselves, or dispense with altogether. But the statement is not true, and if it were founded on fact, it is put in a form calculated to make a most erroneous impression; less sum is contributed by the property, money, and professional classes of New Zealand to the general revenue than is contributed by the same classes in either Europe or America. These classes, in this colony, have hitherto escaped taxation almost entirely. The indirect taxes, from which the general revenue is derived, are chiefly contributed by two classes. One of these consists of those who indulge in deep potations and tobacco ; and the other consists of those who have the largest families. There are very hw persons of large means included in either of these classes. • And the astonishing fact that the large revenue obtained by the colonial Government is not only derived chiefly from the consumption of articles that we could produce ourselves or do without, but is contributed principally by the industrious classes, is itself the strongest proof of the general prosperity which prevails in the country. It also affords evidence of the necessity of the incidence of taxation being more equitably adjusted, with the object of making the absentee and monied classes, mortgagees and money lenders, contribute a fair quota to the burdens of a country from which the greater portion of their incomes are derived. But this is too wide a subject to be dealt with in an editorial note like the present. Scarcely a dozen of our readers were probably aware that au act was passed by the General Assembly some six years ago, conferring upon the nominees who comprise the Legislative Council the same powers and privileges as are possessed by the representative branch of the Legislature. This act is known as the Privileges Act, 1865 ; and is les3 a disgrace to the Statute Book than to the House of Representatives who permitted it to become law. During the past session the Legislative Council showed a disposition to exercise the privileges thus unconstitutionally conferred upon them. On one of these occasions the Hon. Colonel Russell made some very good remarks, which we have much pleasure in quoting from Hansard, because they should be widely known, and because they relate to a subject which is more fully dwelt upon in this day's leader. He said " he felt perfectly satisfied that, by the Privileges Act 1865, which he had always regretted, the Council had the right to alter money bills; but he should as much | think of taking advantage of that power as he j should of getting a cheque cashed which had

been sent to him by mistake. Those privileges were given to them by mistake, and they never had any right to them, and so long as the constitution was what it was they never could have those privileges. He was therefore adverse to entering upon a contest in which he felt sure they ought to be beaten." These sensible and constitutional views were not accepted by the Council, the mijority appearing to think with Colonel Whitmore, that it was expedient to exercise a right which they happened to possess, however wrong it might have been for such a right to bo conferred upon them. The question has been since stupidly referred to tho law officers of the Crown, though it does not turn on a.point of law, or on the construction of a statute, but is one of constitutional right, which has been heretofore exclusively exercised by the representative branch of the legislature, it having been laid down by the Imperial Government in 1855 that the House of Representatives ought to exercise, without dispute, the same privileges with regard to money votes as the House of Common?.