PARLIAMENTARY.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 1833, 7 August 1895, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

(By Telegraph.)

WELLINGTON, August 6. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. THE ADJOURNMENT. Sir P. A. Buckley m moving the adjournment to enable members to attend Judge Richmond's funeral, said that the deceased's gentleman's ability as a Judge and his fairness upon all occasions upon the judicial bench, were such that New Zealand for many days would consider his death a great national loss. He had shed lustre on the Bench, and there was not, m the Australasian colonies, a superior judicial mind. The motion was carried. The Council adjourned till 2.30 p.m. next day. HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES. THE LATE MR JUSTICE RICHMOND. On the House meeting at 2.30 p.m., the Premier rose and said that an honourable Judge, one of New Zealand's greatest men, had passed away. By the death of Mr Justice Richmond the colony hadlosta faithful public servant, one who wan respected and honoured by all. The Premier referred m terms of great praise to the abilities and attainments of the deceased Judge, and his sterling qualities both as a Judge and a private citizen. It had been stated that the Government had desired his retirement, but he (the Premier) gave this report an unqualified and emphatic denial. The Government deeply deplored his loss, and recognised that his place would be very hard indeed to fill. He moved that the House adjourn till 7.30 p.m., as a token of sympathy and respect. Captain Russell, m seconding the motion, said that New Zealand mourned the loss of a great man, and it was fitting that the Councils of the State should adjourn m his memory. In every phase of his career Judge Richmond had been a great model to the whole colony, and perhaps more particularly at that stage of the colony's history when a model was most required. His death had left a blank, which it was impossible to fill.

Mr Bell, as one who had practised before Mr Justice Richmond for a long number of years, added his testimony to the upright and honourable character that he had preserved throughout his life as a citizen, a statesman, and a Judge.

Mr Saunders also spoke, and referred to the way m which Mr Justice Richmond had been libelled for his administration of native affairs when he held the Portfolio of Native Minister.

The motion was agreed to, and the House rose at 2.55 p.m.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m THB FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Mr Ward moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. He said that he would explain, as far as the time at his disposal would allow, the various matters referred to m the Financial Statement. He thought that both sides of the House should assist the Government m devising a proper < tariff which might last for some years longer. He desired to state most emphatically that whilst the Government were prepared to accept reasonable amendnents m committee, if those amendments tended to weaken the Government finance m any way, they would not accept them under any conditions. He regretted very much that confidential information had leaked out, he knew not how, before the j tariff proposals were brought down, and on the strength of this information speculative clearances from the Customs representing £14,510 m duty were made on the day prior to the delivery of the Budget. The clearances made were mostly on the articles on which an increase of duty was proposed, thus showing that the premature information had been acted on by importers. This was altogether unfair. It had been said that the reduction of duty on tea, kerosene, fencing wire, and rice would benefit only importers and dealers and not consumers. It might be found judicious to take the duty off one of these articles altogether so that the consumer might benefit by it. The free importation of stones for jewellery might veiy well be considered. The Government could not make any alteration m the date of the coming into operation of the tariff, nor could they agree to the suggestion that the cargo which arrived by the Tainui should be dealt with under the old tariff. The Auckland importers by this vessel had to pay the duty under the old rates, I while those at southern ports came

under the new rates. This appeared to him to be one of the fortunes of war, and no changes could be made as affecting any of the ports. The importers mustunderstand thatspeeial concessions could not be made to any particular place. The treaty with Canada was subject to the ratification of Parliament, and if the House deemed it desirable to eliminate any item not thought requisite, that item could be struck out. He specially mentioned the timber item, and said that he was prepared to leave it to the judgment of the House; adding that one of the largest timber merchants m Wellington hai told aim that New Zealand could hold its own with Canada m the timber line. The House should approve of the reciprocal tariff with Canada m a broad spirit. Some firms m the colony were already holding back items, such as wool and tallow, which the Government proposed to put on the free list for Canada. The House should realise what an outside market for our products meant and should be prepared to give and take m such important matters. Canada had offered to take our mails free of charge overland for two years, which meant a concession of £5000 a year, and showed that the country desired to co-operate with this colony. As to the fruit proposals with South Australia, they could be varied, but their rejection altogether would not destroy the proposed treaty with that colony. Dealing with financial matters, Mr Ward denied emphatically that the sinking funds had been seized or annexed, as claimed by Sir Robert Stout. He (Mr Ward) had acted strictly m accordance with the law, and he showed how Sir R. Stout's statement must fall to the ground; moreover m 1886 Sir R. Stout had acted m exactly the same way as the present Government had done with respect to the sinking funds. He referred at some length to the change made last year m the system of interest account which had resulted m a saving of £103,085 as compared wtth the previous year. If the old system had been continued there would have been £125,769 more payable for interest than was at present the case. It was his desire to giye members the fullest possible information regard- ! ing the proposals of the Government.

Sir R. Stout, m a personal explanation, said that his reference to sinking funds applied solely to local bodies loans. Mr Mitchelson deprecated the tactics again adopted by Mr Ward of making two speeches m the financial debate. Mr Mitehelson hoped that this precedent would not be followed m future. The Treasurer's speech showed that he had completely altered his tariff proposals ; he had m fact delivered a fresh financial statement. It was not fair to ask the Opposition to debate an entirely new budget. He saw nothing whatever m the Statement to give rise to so much congratulation. Its only redeeming point was the absence of the wild cat schemes which had appeared m the previous year's Budget. Referring to the surplus for the year he said that it was £10,000 less than last year. Yet the Treasurer told them that the colony was m a prosperous condition. He (Mr Mitchelson) thought that we had reached the bedrock, both of the Consolidatfd Fund and the Public Works Fund. To his mind Mr Ward should not have taken as much credit to himself for saving a large amount of interest when that saving was made at the expense of those who were compelled to pay the land tax four months before it was due. The Treasurer had followed the pernicious practice of bringing forward and including m the surplus the money that had been paid into the Public Works Fund. He would like to know the intentions of the Government m regard to carrying out public works m future. No less than £126,000 of loan money had been under the control of the Government since 1891, and of this amount there was now practically only £5200 available for new votes for public works. Referring to the Consols Act of last session he said that the people preferred to keep their money m their old stockings rather than invest it m Government consols. He contended that the increase m the public debt for the last three years was £2,291,109 instead of £1,500,000 as claimed by the Treasurer. On account of this large m crease m our public debt no actual saving was being made m interest. The figures showed that we had actually paid for interest last year £68,000 more than m 1891. The total amount borrowed by this professedly non-borrowing Government since 1891 was £3,330,892. It was surely time that the Government dropped this title they had assumed. Unemployed relief funds and the establishment of soup kitchens showed that the colony was not m a very prosperous condition. He failed to see that New Zealand had anything to gain by adopting either the South Australian or Canadian treaties, and he objected to the colony binding itself m this respect to other colonies as against the Mother Country, which had always received our products. He was opposed to both treaties —that with South Australia would strike a severe blow at the wine and fruit industries of the colony, especially north of Auckland ; while the free admission of Canadian timber and salmon would injure industries m this country. He opposed the Canadian mail service and hoped that it would be rejected. As to the tariff proposals they were now so modified that the House could not discuss them. His opinion was that the Budget as a whole was an admission that the finances of the colony were not m nearly such a satisfactory condition as was claimed by the Treasurer, and he saw m it no hope for the future.

Mr Pirani defended the Government from the several charges made against them by Mr Mitchelson. It seemed to him (Mr Pirani) that all this cry about increasing our public debt and seizure of sinking funds was so much waste of time. The Opposition would do exactly the same thing if they had the opportunity. He warmly praised the Budget, and said that if the Government carried a satisfactory Local Government Bill they would accomplish another great good for the colony. Mr Ward was to be congratulated on his intention to modify the tariff, as it certainly required modification. He regretted, however, to hear Mr Mitchelson condemn the Colonial Treasurer for promising a modification, as that was exactly what was done m 1888 by the Government of which Mr Mitchelson himself was a member.

Mr Duthie said that the Statement was a most involved one, and full of inaccuracies. There was no doubting the depression that now existed, and it was due to the fact that all enterprise was dead, and capital was kept locked up m the banks. He complained of the falserepresentation that was made resDect ing our position. The real surplus between revenue and expenditure this year was only £15,284, but if two of the items, those for mail service and land settlement, had been spent, there would have been a deficit. He asserted that during the four years Ministers had been m office they had not contributed a shilling from the revenue to public works, and the large increase m the public debt showed that the Government had borrowed to a very large extent. He referred at length to the conversion operations, and said that they m reality meant a loss to the colony. Mr Hogg denied Mr Duthie's assertion that the colony was not progressing and that settlement was not spreading. Our exports were never better than at present, and there was a great revival m the mining industiy. He warmly approved of the Budget proposals. Mr McGowan considered that the Government were entitled to the highest praise for the splendid financial position the colony had reached, but the Government should not forget the people who put them m office. He failed to see what principle guided the Treasurer m framing his tariff. The Commission

had proposed reductions on three items largely used by the working classes, namely, tea, kerosene and cotton goods, which reached no less than £67,806, which contrasted largely with the nature of the reductions proposed by the Treasurer. The local timber industry would suffer by the free admission of Canadian timber.

The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr E. M. Smith.

The House rose at 12.45 a.m