FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Speech delivered by Mr. WRIGHT m the House of Representatives on the 7th July, 1891.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE ASHBUBTON MAIL.

Mr. WEIGHT.—It is a, late hour at which to continue the debate, but, as the Government are unwilling to adjourn, I presume I must proceed. I have listened carefully to nearly every speech that has been delivered m this debate, and, whilst I have heard very much m condemnation of the Government proposals, I have heard very little of absolute approval. The approval, where given, has been qualified by many objections. I need not say that, throughout, the speakers have absolutely con demned the tax upon improvements. The differential income-tax appears to be almost equally unpopular, and the proposal to sacri fice the sum of £50,000 of postal revenue has been condemned freely on both sides of the House. The debate, I am quite aware, has been pretty well threshed out; but until the honourable member for Ellesmere spoke I thought there were a few matters left to which I might reply. The criticisms on the proposals have extended, I should say, far beyond the Premier's utmost expectations : he must have got much valuable information during the dis cussion. For my part, I do not propose to travel over the old ground more than I can possibly help : m fact, I should not speak at all if it were not that I realise how exceedingly unjust and oppressive these proposals would be to hundreds of deserving settlers m the colony if they became law. I will endeavour to give one or two illustrations, and I have a few words to say on the subject of equality of sacrifice, to show what I believe to be the fallacy of the arguments on which these taxation proposals are founded. I will refer to a gentleman who is a near neighbour of my own—a gentleman who has spent thirty years of his life as a farmer m Canterbury, who has been a pioneer m all agricultural industry—a gentleman who was a prime mover m the establishment of the frozen-meat industry, and a very large employer of labour. He wrote to me m reference to these proposals, and I think it will be no breach of confidence if I read his letter. Mr. John Grigg writes as follows :— " Longheach, 20th June, 1891. " Dear Sib, —I replied to your telegram as to the expenditure on Longbeach, and I also corrected it as to the part sold." The telegram to which he refers was to this effect: I wrote asking what amount the improvements effected on his estate repre sented. He wired back: " Oil fifteen thousand acres farmed — improvements, £75,000 to £100,000 ; upon land sold, £22,000." I will go on to read the letter:— " I am sure that I am well within the mark as to the part lam farming. The last three years I have laid down more than a hundred miles of drainpipes, made on the farm, at a depth of from 3ft. to 7ft. Gin. In order that the House may be convinced of the value to the country and. to the people of some large estates, I have asked Mr. Waymouth to send you the amounts of my annual payments to the railway for the last three years. This will give a pretty accu rate idea also of my contributions indirectly to the revenue. I have an average of one man employed for every hundred acres throughout the year. My men save and put into the savings-bank more than £5,000 a year. I pay m providing them, and m other ways, I sub mit, a larger proportion of the Customs revenue than any equal area of farmed land m the colony. No other area of fifteen thousand acres approaches this, I am sure, m contribu tion to the railway system. Now, what I com plain of most of all m the proposed scheme of taxation of land is that the Government makes no difference between money spent m improve ments and the value of the land unimproved, and yet money spent on labour m any other way is to be exceptionally and leniently dealt with. They pretend to desire the employment of the people and the occupation of the land, and yet devise a scheme the tendency of which is to obstruct both one and the other." So much for his letter. As to his contribu tions to the railway traffic, this is the telegram furnished by Mr. F. Waymouth : " Grigg's rail age for year ending May, 1889, £4,783 ; 1890, £4,111; 1891, £4,501." These figures give some indication of the amount of business that this gentleman carries on, and the amount of labour he employs on one estate—not a huge estate uncultivated, of one or two hundred thousand acres, but an estate of fifteen thousand acres— a property which, at the time he took possession of it, was to a large extent an almost impass able swamp. This gentleman has spent the best years of his life m developing this property, and the reward he is to receive under the proposals of the Government is somewhat of the following character. I take the valuation of his property as set forth m the blue-books some three years back. According to the tele gram he furnished me, since that valuation was made he has added to his expenditure by way of improvement to the extent of nearly £30,000. I am dealing first with the expenditure as given m the blue-books. The last valuation of his property is £133,558, and the expenditure on improvements was £-10,000. He pays under the present property-tax £554. Under the proposed taxation—his land being valued at £133,500, with exemption of £500 for land and £3,000 for improvements —he will pay £883 7s. Bd.; so that his taxation is in creased by the sum of about £330. If he is to be charged on the total improvements up to date, instead of paying £554 he will be called upon to pay £1,1*03. Well, this gentle man is one of a class; and is that the class of settlers we wish to discourage and to impose heavy burdens on, to check their enterprise? These figures would be modified by stock ex emptions, but the injustice would still remain. The honourable member for Dunedin City (Mr. W. Hutchison) said we want no rich men m this colony. I never heard a more ridiculous declaration m all my life. What does that mean? That we are to have no enterprise, that we are all to sink to a dead level—no energy m ourselves, and no progress m the colony. And if these proposals are given effect to, that will be the practical outcome. Now another illustration : There is the Islington Meat-freezing Company, which I think has been referred to once before m the course of this debate. Here is a company that took up a few acres of land m the old bed of the River Waimakariri, and have expended the amount of £50,000 m factory buildings to the benefit of the district—because this competition m the meat-freezing tends to bring down charges; and how are they to be rewarded ? Under these proposals their taxation will be increased at least,. 50 per cent. Now, on the subject of the equality of sacrifice I have a few words to say, because it is on this basis, it appears to me, that the whole of the proposals of the Treasurer are founded —and founded m error. The honourable gentleman m his Statement says,— " Touching the principle of a graduated land tax, the Committee will probably desire to learn how its incidence bears on wealth compared

with the taxation paid by members of the working-classes. I will endeavour to show the amount of taxation paid through the Customs respectively by an artisan and a labourer, each having a family of five, the former receiving 535. a week, or £137 per year, and the latter 395. a week, or £101 per year. The artisan would pay m duty £12 10s. 4d., equal to 9-l per cent. on his earnings; while the labourer would pay £11 11s. 5d., or ll'i per cent, on his earnings. This allows for no broken periods, or for periods of sickness or non-employment, during which the earnings might cease, while the paying of duty, at least to some extent, would continue. Let us now see what the owner of land worth £105,000 would pay m a graduated land-tax. Deducting £3,000 for improvements, a 1-jjd. tax will amount to £G9O, or about 0 ; } per cent, on an assumed income of £7,350. In addition he might pay 3 per cent, on his income to the Customs. The result illustrates how inequi table has been the system of taxation prevailing m this country." Then, further on he says, "The graduation of taxation on large estates is m accordance with the principle of equality of sacrifice, and will act m the direction of placing a check on monopoly." Now, according to these figures the artisan pays on his earnings 9 per cent, and the labourer 11 per cent., and the land owner 12i per cent. I would say that if these figures were correct this proportion would not be unreasonable. True, the landowner would pay 2 or 3 per cent, more than the other classes of the community ; but even this I should riot object to. But I think I shall be able to show to the Hor..;:: that these figures are entirely erroneous. The figures have been made to suit the statement: they are not founded on fact, but are deceptive and misleading m the highest degree. For the purpose of making the proposed taxation appear equitable on this basis of equality of sacrifice, the Treasurer uses figures that he must know are errone ous. He must know that they are erroneous, because he has been appealed to to give the basis of his calculations, and he has carefully abstained from doing so. My objection to the statement is that such a statement will have a most mischievous effect, when it goes forth to the world that the labourer m New Zealand has to pay 11 per cent, out of his earnings by way of Customs duties. He does nothing of the sort. Now, Sir, reversing the order of procedure adopted by the Colonial Treasurer, and taking the owner of land worth £105,000, first I would ask, is the Treasurer justified m saying that such an estate would bring m a rental of 7 per cent. ? The honour able member for Ellesmere has pointed out that such an estate would not bring m more than 5 per cent, or 6 per cent.; and the Minis ter of Justice told the House that land was purchased at a price which brought m, as a rule, a low rate of interest. That being so, the Treasurer is not justified m assuming that this large estate would bring m 7 per cent. If you take it as bringing m G per cent, as the maximum amount, then the income will be £0,300, and not £7,350, and the amount pay able would be £090, which represents 11 per cent., and not 94 per cent, as stated by the Colonial Treasurer. In addition he has to pay 3 per cent, of Customs duty—m all, 14 per cent. As against this, I think I shall be able to show that the labourer does not pay 5 per cent, of his income to the Customs, much less 11*4 per cent.; and even then the State gives back m education all that he contributes to the revenue by way of Customs. Now, as to the basis on which the Treasurer has founded his calculations: As I have to reply to figures, I am afraid I must trouble the House with figures. The Colonial Treasurer has stated that the labourer, with a wife and five children, who earns £101 a year pays £11 11s. sd. per annum, or 11-4 per cent, of, his earnings; but he is careful not to say upon what calculation he arrives at this result. His calculations are based on error. If honourable members will refer to Table 11, attached to this Statement, they will find the contributions to the Customs set down as follows for adult males:—

—and not to £11 lls. sd. No possible com bination of these figures will give the result arrived at by the Treasurer. How has he ar rived at this sum of £11 lls. sd. ? I think I can show you how he has arrived at it. At any rate, I arrived at the figures within a halfpenny, and if I am not right the Colonial Treasurer can produce his figures and show where I am wrong. Ho has left out of his reckoning spirits as not being popular and an article of universal consumption, and then, having elimi nated spirits, he adds up every item of the revenue set down m this table, and multiplies by 4s, counting two children as equal to one adult, which is perfectly fair—they are gene rally taken on that basis. Here arc the figures, which I think will confirm my view as to the manner m which the Colonial Trea surer has arrived at this £11 lls. sd. :—

That gives £2 lls. sd. Multiply that by 4 : j-, and that gives £11 Us. 4^d. If the Colonial Treasurer has arrived at his £11 11k. sd. by any other process, I shall bo very glad to know what it is. I think this shows that his calculations have not received the closest consideration : m fact, I take it that the Government proposals have received very little consideration. They have been set down somewhat rashly, m fulfil ment of still more rash electioneering pledges, and figures made to lit m with the desired result. Now, according to the honourable gentleman's figures which I have given, every man, woman, and child m the colony is charged with a full share of the consumption of to bacco, sugar, and snuff on the basis of adult males; because the figures m the tables are given as the averages for the adult males of

the colony; also with a full share of all the wine and beer drunk m the colony. Now, the item " artisan, £12 10s. 4d.," is equally unfathomable; but if you allow the artisan to have half a share of whiskey you will come very close to it. That, added to the £11 lls. 5d., will bring up the figures to £12 9s. Sd., or only Bd. short of the amount set clown by the Colonial Treasurer. Now, I believe it is upon the basis of these figures that the Colonial Treasurer has worked up that £11 lls. sd. Mr. BALLANCE.—No. Mr. WRIGHT.—The Colonial Treasurer says "No." Then he will presently show us the figures upon which he has made up that amount. It will be difficult to make up that amount m any proper fashion, and to shosv that that is the contribution of any labourer m New Zealand. This statement is made as the contribution of a man who is m the receipt of £101 per annum and who has a wife and five children. In this statement the Colonial Treasurer apparently appeals to the very large class of railway-workmen throughout the colony, because he takes their wages as the basis for comparison—6s. 6d. per diem. I pur pose giving to the House what I believe to be a much nearer approximation of the amount of Customs revenue which a labourer m this colony contributes to the revenue. I will omit spirits, also wine and beer, as not being neces sary, and I make out the contribution to be as follows:—

* For the father and mother. t Vov father, mother, and 5 childrou. That makes it £4 13s. 5d., as against £1111s. sd. I am satisfied that if any honourable gentle man will go through the calculations for him self, and set down fairly the consumption of the working - classes, he will agree that that is an overestimate. If £11 lls. 3d. is the con tribution of a man with only five children, I should like to know the contribution of a man with ten or a dozen children. It would be some thing startling. The £4 13s. sd. which I have set down is only arrived at on the assumption that the working-classes participate m all the silks and velvets and luxuries of civilisation that are imported, m direct proportion with all other classes, because 12s. SM. is the average per head for the entire population. If the amount of duty upon the ad valorem goods were put down at one-half, I think that would be a much nearer approximation to what he pays, and then the £4 13s. sd. would be reduced by £1 Bs. 10d., and we have thus £3 4s. 10d., or 3J per cent, of his income, as against 14 per cent, which is to be the contribu tion of the large landowner. And this is what is termed "equality of sacrifice." As I said at the outset, the figures have been adapted to meet the statement, and are not founded on fact. If my figures are not correct, and the Customs duties paid by this labourer and his family amount to £11 lls. 5d., as stated by the Treasurer, where does this statement lead us? The Customs duties average about 20 per cent, of the cost of the goods con sumed. I think that is a fair average. On some goods the duty is as low as 5 per cent., on others 10 per cent. ; but 20 per cent, is about a fair average. Therefore, if the labourer expends £11 lls. sd. on dutiable goods, that, multiplied by 5, gives £57 7s. Id. out of a total income of £101 for dutiable goods alone, leaving the balance of his income for all the main necessaries of life — bread and meat, rent, fuel, and colonial clothing. All articles of food and fuel produced m the colony arc duty - free and pay nothing to the State, whilst the duties paid by all classes on tea, coffee, sugar, ct cetera, amount to exactly one-half of what the State pays for educa tion. Here are the figures; The duty on tea m 1890 amounted to £98,797; on cof fee, chicory, ct cetera, £7,299 ; and on sugar, £113,876 : making a total of £219,962. The education vote amounted to £369,776; the revenue from reserves, which is deducted from the vote, but which is a contribution to educa tion, is £33,900; and for school-buildings the actual expenditure was £35,092 : or a total of £438,908, being just double the contribution through the Customs of all classes for tea, coffee, and sugar, which are the principal duti able articles the charge for which falls upon the working-classes. So much for the equality of sacrifice under these proposals. Now I will pass on to another subject, which seemed to be a source of amusement rather to one or two honourable members who have spoken during this debate; and that is the subject of sheep. One honourable gentleman—l think it was the honourable member for the Buller—proposed to tax the frozen mutton 6d. a carcase. An other honourable gentleman, the honourable member for Dunedin City (Mr. W. Hutchi son), politely suggested an export duty of Ad. a pound on wool. A notion seems to pre vail among many members m this House that sheep arc the peculiar property of the wealthy class, and therefore it is fair game to have a shot at them by these suggestions. Now, let me give the figures, which show who really arc the owners of sheep m this colony. The figures will be found m Volume 3 of the Appendix, 1890, H.-8, page 3. The total number of sheep m the colony was 15,423,328. 7,054 persons held fewer than 500 sheep each ; we may average them at 300 each, or 2,116,200. The number of persons who held flocks be tween 500 and under 1,000 was 1,381; and we may average their flocks at 750 sheep, or 1,035,750. The number of those who held be tween 1,000 and 2,000 was 820 ; and they may be averaged at 1,500 each, and they repre sent 1,239,000. Then there were 597 owners of iiocks between 2,000 and 5,000; or 2,089,000 sheep. So that the owners of sheep m flocks under 5,000 aggregate a total of 0,479,000. As against these, which may be called the flocks of small owners, are the flocks of large owners, which represent the balance, or 9,000,000 sheep. But this should be borne m mind: that, while the flocks of large owners are almost en tirely merino sheep, the flocks of the small owners are cross-breeds, or the better class of sheep, and the money-value of the lower number, 0,479,000, its equal to the money value of the greater number, or 9,000,000; so that the holders of flocks of under 5,000 sheep practically possess one-half of the sheep interest m the colony. When honourable members calmly suggest that wool shall be taxed Jd, iti the pound, what is it that they suggest? Coarse wool sells for Gd. or 7d. a a pound ; so that they want to tax the owners of this particular class of property to the ex tent of 7 or 8 per cent., or upwards, accord ing to the value of the wool, and that not on their profits, but on the total pro duct. The proposal is simply absurd, and shows that honourable members who make such suggestions know nothing whatever of the

subject which they are discussing. And now a few words as to the exodus. The late Go vernment were assailed m all the organs of the Opposition, from one end of the colony to the other, for having neglected their duty, inas much as they had not devised means to check the exodus of the people. Well, no one de plores the exodus of the people from this colony more than I do ; but I take it that it is a matter beyond dispute that neither the late Government nor the present Government are altogether to blame for this. The exodus is owing to causes which they have not had the power to control. When the public-works system was m full swing we imported, with out much judgment, thousands of people. We did not import a sufficient proportion of agri cultural labourers, and we imported by far too large a proportion of artisans and workers m towns. What is the result ? The public-works expenditure has ceased, and the artisan class and the toilers from the towns m the Old Country had no affinity whatever for agricul tural labour; so they have taken their departure for other places, where they hope for better results than they can accomplish here. Thou sands of people came here from the Old Country not with the idea of making a bare subsistence, but rather with the idea of becom ing wealthy and making a fortune ; and, having found that they were not successful m New Zealand, they are now leaving for other parts of the world, where they think there is a better chance of success. They have gone to the Broken Hill silver-mines; they have gone to the goldfields and diamond-fields of South Africa; and at present they are making m large numbers for the silver-mines of Tas mania ; and no inducement that the Go vernment can hold out will check them. In order to check this exodus, if it were pos sible, I should prefer to give away the land, rather than let these men depart. In this con nection I would suggest to the Minister of Lands that when he brings down his Land Bill he might make some improvement m making our land-laws more liberal than they are at the present time. I believe, however, that even now they are the most liberal land-laws m exist ence, seeing the variety of tenure. The power of converting a perpetual lease into a freehold is a privilege greatly prized by the people. It is on that ground that so large a proportion of land is taken up under that tenure, with a view of ultimately making it a freehold. The sug gestion I have to make is this : that, m order to give the poorest class of settlers the best possible start, the State, without altogether dry-nursing him and contributing money to carry him on, might allow him to hold the land free of any rent-charge for the first two years, letting that rent-charge be distributed over the remainder of the term. The State could suffer no loss by this process, because ' no settler can m two years take much out of the land. There is no fear of his running away and leaving the land m a worse con dition than he found it at the outset. Now, as to the desire of the small holders to acquire a freehold, I may say that a deputation waited on the Minister of Lands the other day asking him to allow them to convert their holdings at Woodville into freehold; and I was very sorry indeed to see that he sent them away with a refusal. They wrote to me as follows :— " We, the Woodville village settlers, have for some time petitioned the Minister of Lands and other officials to grant us the right to pur chase our small holdings, which are under the perpetual-lease system, or to alter the tenure thereof, so that we can make it our belonging m time to come: but little notice have we re ceived. " There is a deputation coming to Wellington m a few days which will try and bring the matter before the House, and explain our situa tion. "Should you approve of our request, we humbly beg, m the name of our fellow-settlers, that you will use your influence and support us m this matter, and we will ever be grateful to you." Well, I shall give them the advice which the honourable member for Ellesmere sug gested this afternoon—that they should hold on to their land and 'bide their time. In the course of a few years the number of small holdings under perpetual leases and deferred payment will be very great, and, m their desire to secure a freehold, they will vote against any candidate who will not support their claims, and they will by that process, I believe, ulti mately acquire a freehold. I hope, indeed, that every man m the colony will be able to do that. It is the natural wish of men of the English race — and of most others, for the matter of that—to acquire a freehold of their own that they can pass on to their children without any risk of excessive valuation of their property. I have started to speak at a late hour, and I am afraid I shall have to drop one-half of what I have to say. But there are one or two matters that I must refer to. One honourable gentleman on the other side of the House re ferred to the seven millions m the banks which escapes taxation. I should like to ask him if he has thought for a moment what this seven millions represents. It represents, m fact, the savings of the working-classes. That is what the seven millions which escapes taxation m the banks represents. It is a multitude of small sums, and if you tax that you will be simply taxing the deposits of the working classes. The tax that you put on will fall on the depositors ; for it is quite certain that what ever tax is put on will go to the reduction of the interest that is paid to the depositors, and ifc is not the banks that will pay. So much for that matter. Then, the Treasurer proposes to sacri fice £40,000 of postal revenue, as he stated, though other honourable gentlemen have told us that it is £50,000, and one said £55,000; but, whatever the amount is, the proposal is altogether unwise and extremely injudicious, and will operate to the disadvantage of the country districts. At the present moment, owing to the fact that the Postal Department brings m a fair amount of revenue to the colony, when country settlers m various parts require an extension of postal accommodation it is freely granted to them. Many services now current certainly do not bring m sufficient money to pay for these services m the country districts ; at the same time it is m the in terests of settlement that the concessions are granted. But to reduce the postage from 2d. to Id. is to cripple the revenue of the Postal De partment ; and when these applications begin to come m, as we know they must do, the answer will be that the department cannot afford to incur the charge involved, and the country dis tricts will be the very first to suffer under this proposed concession m the postal charge. It will go not for the benefit of the working classes, who write letters once a month, or, perhaps, not oftener than once m two months, but into the pockets of the merchants and the mercantile classes generally. I may state also, m reference to the Postal Department, that the Colonial Treasurer appears not to have taken into account the fact that the popula tion of Victoria has been increasing at a very rapid rate during the last ten years;

while our population has practically been afc a standstill. The revenue that is now to be thrown away will therefore not be recovered for many years to come. 1 will now take the matter of the three-thousand-pound exemp tion. The honourable member for Welling ton City (Mr. Duthie) stated that this exemp tion would clear the suburban properties; but it will do much more than that. It will clear 90 per cent, of the town and suburban properties entirely, while giving a very partial measure of relief m the country districts. Take a town property the land of which is worth £500, and the improvements worth £3,000. That is not an undue valuation for suburban properties. Under the Treasurer's proposals that property will not pay a penny. If, however, you take a country property of the same value, the land may be worth £2,500 and the improvements £1,000, so that, with the exemption of £500 for land and £1,000 for im provements, the owner would have £2,000 to pay upon. But if the country property happens to be mortgaged to the extent of £I,ooo—as m all probability it would be, for all of them are mortgaged to a considerable extent—the coun try property would pay £12 10s., while the town or suburban property would escape alto gether. The worst feature m these proposals is that, inasmuch as the £3,000 of exemption does not apply to the mortgages, the effect will be that the well-to-do classes will derive the benefit, as they are almost free from mort gages, while it will help to keep down the struggling men. As to the income-tax, I have very few words to say on this. Like several other members, I have prepared a table to see how it will work out. If a tradesman has an income of £500 he will have to pay £10, while the professional man will get off by pay ing £2 10s.; and so it goes on right through the scale, until you get up to an income of £2,000, where the tradesman would have to pay £92 10s., and the professional man or sala ried officer would escape by paying £40. I see no reason for the great difference m the rate at which these two classes are to be charged. It is said, of course, that the pro fessional man lives by his brains, and the tradesman is working on his capital. But this is not so. It is true that the professional man lives by his brains, but it is equally true that the tradesman also lives by his brains, and un less he does so he very soon goes to the wall: m fact, he requires, as a rule, more diligence and application m his work than the profes sional man or the salaried officer. Traders, to some extent, trade with their own capital, but for the most part their operations are carried on by bank discounts, for which they have to pay a substantial rate of interest —7 per cent, or 8 per cent. Practically one class of settlers would be charged three or four times more than the other class, and I think therefore the proposals altogether unfair and ill-considered. Then, as to the land-tax —that is, the tax on unimproved value : Now, upon what basis is this to be taken? Is the purchasing-price to be taken?—because m that case some districts will be punished severely, while others will escape with a very trifling contribution. The holders of land m the Province' of Auckland bought at an average of 7s. an acre, whilst the land sold m Canterbury has been sold at an average of £2 an acre. Consequently, if the original selling-price is to approximate at all to the valuation of unimproved land, it will be a very gross injustice to those who bought land m Canterbury. Something was said, I think by the honourable member for the Penin sula, about the unearned increment, and also about the increased value given by the public works. I think it is only necessary, m reply to that, to state that since the public-works policy was carried out a great deal of land has been taken vp—that is to say, since 18S2; and, whilst purchasers prior to that time may have derived considerable additions to their values by the public - works expenditure, it cannot be said to apply to the immense area of land tli at has been purchased subsequently to the construction of these railways. The land would never have been bought at the price which it fetched but for the railways being made. It was the construction of the railways that brought it within marketable distance of the ports for the produce; and, inasmuch as the State received full value for the land that was sold subsequently to the construction of the railways, the State itself has received the unearned increment —certainly not the purchaser who bought his land after the rail ways were made. So much for those who pur chased and still continue to hold. Then, you have another large class of settlers, who have purchased m late years, who were not first purchasers, and who did not buy their land before the railways were made nor immediately afterwards, but who have come into the country and purchased land at full market-prices. Can they be said to hold the unearned increment ? Not at all. Therefore the proposal to reach this class of property is utterly impracticable, unless you are going to legislate to catch a few score of owners throughout the colony, and injure thousands m doing so. Now, the Colonial Treasurer chuckles at the prospect of having a surplus at the end of the year of £257,000. Some honourable members say that it exists only on paper. I assume that it has a solid existence, and I would suggest to the honourable gentleman that out of this very handsome surplus he should give some relief to the working-classes. Under the present pro posals they are not receiving relief m any direction whatever, except m so much as the reduction of postage may affect them. That will be m a very small degree. Therefore, in stead of doing that, I thought that, finding he had this large surplus at his disposal, he would abolish the sugar duty, I thought he would have struck off the sugar duty altogether, as that would only represent £113,000, or less than half the anticipated surplus. In that way this very handsome surplus would be utilised to benefit the class of the community who need it most —the working-classes. Having done that, I should retain the £100,000 which you propose to appropriate by way of reduction of the floating debt. It is not a large amount, and, m fact, it will count as nothing against the millions that have been borrowed. Let, therefore, the honourable gentleman retain the £100,000, and utilise that surplus to push on with a little more expedition several of the unfinished railways. These unfinished lines have absorbed a large amount of money, and up to the present time they remain utterly unproductive. If you utilised that £100,000 m that way, it would help to push on these railways to a paying-point, and we should thereby be doing good service by giving em ployment to the people, and, by this expendi ture, check to some extent the exodus that has been going on. I wished to express my views as briefly as I could. I do not believe m the beneficial results that are anticipated by some honourable gentlemen from the finan cial proposals of the Treasurer. On the other hand, I can see nothing but uncertainty and disappointment to all parties concerned. Sir, I thank honourable members for the attention they have given me.



£ s. d. £ k. d. Tea  0 2 11Jx2* ... 0 511 Coffee, chicory, and cocoa 0 0 2J Sugar ... ... ... 0 3 U Ad valorem goods... ... 012 8J £0 1G 3?)XU\- ... IS 5 2 Tobacco (father) ... ... 12 4

pa v.i n



iihilt males- Spirits (£llos. 7<1.) omitted. Tobacco Cigars, cigarettes, and snuff ... Jules aud females over fifteen— Wine Boer (imported) Ten ... ... •■• Coffee, cocoa, and chicory Sugar ... Ad valorem goods Beer (colonial) ...

£ s. v. ... 1 2 4 ... 0 4 o ... 0 1 H ... 0 1 0 ... 0 12 11A ... 0 0 '2A ... 0 ii 4| ... 0 VI 8A ... o a v"

A"2 11 5



<Vdult males— £ s. cl. Spirits 1 10 7 Tobacco 12 4 Cigars, cigarettes, and snuff ... ... 0 4 ii

Males and females over 3 3 2 fifteen — Wine £0 1 8 Ale and beer 0 1 I) Tea 0 G 11;[ New Zealand beer ... 0 2 11

Father and mother ... 0 8 0.1x2 ... 017 Oh

For total population, in cluding Maoris— Coffee, cocoa, and chicory (I 0 2A Sugar 0 3 4A Ad valorem goods ... Olii HA

Counting every child as an adult 010 3§ x 7 ... 5 14 0£ Even that would not do it, but it amounts in nil tn ... ... ... .£0 14 ;j