DUTY ON GRAIN.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1413, 26 August 1878, Page 3

DUTY ON GRAIN.

MEETING OP THE MEMBEBS OP THE COEN EXCHANGE, A meeting of members was held on Saturday afternoon at the Corn Exchange. The attendance was not numerous, there being at the commencement of the meeting about fourteen and at its close about twentyone present. Mr H. W. Peryman was called to the chair, and opened the proceedings by reading the notice in the morning papers in response to which those present had assembled. The Rev. A. P. o‘Callaghan made some introductory remarks, in the course of which he referred to a meeting which had been held on the previous Thursday night at Lincoln. This, he said, had been largely attended, and had passed unanimously a resolution condemning the policy of the Government in taking the duty off breadstuffs and grain. He considered that Adelaide flour might fairly be looked upon as a luxury, and he could not see why the people of the West Coast, if they preferred using it rather than New Zealand flour, should not be made to pay an extra price for it, in the shape of a duty. Mr Thomas Bruce proposed a resolution protesting in strong terms against the Government proposal to take the duty off flour and wheat, whilst they at the same time retained a duty on timber, Mr Leadly seconded the resolution. Mr Vincent, in supporting the resolution, said that he had been in communication with the deputation now waiting upon Government at Wellington relative to the beer tax. The feeling amongst the brewers was, that it was desirable that the farmers should assist the brewers in getting Government to take off the tax on beer, whilst in return the brewers should assist the farmers to induce Government to retain the duty on grain and flour. Mr Louisson said that if the duty was taken off grain and breadstuffs, one result would be that maltsters would be able to import their barley from California. He would support the resolut ion.

Mr Bateman moved as an amendment—- “ That this meeting fully approves of the action of the New Zealand Government in taking off the duty on flour and grain, and strongly urges the Government to follow a free-trade policy as much as possible.” He apprehended that the meeting had been called in order to afford all the members of the Corn Exchange an opportunity of expressing fearlessly their individual opinions. It was with regret that he had heard a previous speaker maintain that Adelaide flour should bo looked upon as a luxury, and therefore should be taxed. Let it be a luxury. What did that mean ? Simply that some people preferred it to the flour produced in New Zealand. If these people thought that by buying Adelaide flour they would get better value for their money, he did not see why they should not be allowed to do so, without any interference on the part of the Government or any one else. It appeared from what Mr Yincent and Mr Louisson had said that the brewers and maltsters were making a very happy-family arrangement in trying to get the duty taken off beer, by asking the farmers to combine with them, with the understanding that they would in their turn assist the farmers. So far as a protective policy was concerned, such a policy seemed to him the worst any Government could pursue. He instanced the effect which the duty on boots and shoes had had in Victoria—simply, ho said, to give a certain class of artizans an advantage over consumers, and this was done in Victoria, a country particularly well adapted for the production of the raw materials required for the article taxed — bullock hides and wattle bark. A considerable expense attended the transporting of these to Great Britain, in fact the shipping and other charges on wattle bark amounted to fifty per cent, of its value. In addition to this, there was the expense of bringing out the manufactured article. These charges should be a sufficient protection, without any further assistance from Government. Furthermore, he considered that a country’s greatness entirely depended upon [its productions, and unless these were brought about in the most economical manner a country could not prosper. If the people were forced to pay additional charges for their food, clothing, implements, &c,, all their manufactures must b« produced at a greater cost than in a free trade country, and they would not be able to compete with free trade rivals in any open market. Mr William Henderson seconded the amendment, Protection notions, he said, were effete, and long ago exploded, in proof of which he instanced the countries which had made rapid strides in consequence of their adoption of freetrade principles, whilst others, through” their protective measures, had fallen below zero. Mr James Wright Sawle had much pleasure in supporting the amendment. He thought the abolition of the duty on flour and grain was a very wise stroke of policy on the part •<rf the Government. A great deal had been said about South Australian flour, but

he might tell the meeting that he had been in South Australia from the time that he was five years old till eight years ago. lie had been bred there as a practical farmer, and he could tell them that, during the eight years he had resided in New Zealand, ho had made much more money than he had during the whole of his residence in South Australia. There was no denying that Adelaide wheat and flour took a higher rank in the market than did those of New Zealand, yet Adelaide had had no protection. Though she could onlygrow eight or ten bushels to the acre, she could make wheat growing pay without protection. Surely New Zealand, where thirty bushels to the acre could be raised, could do very well with free trade. He did not see any necessity for corn laws here. He would remind them, too, that if protection was allowed on grain, mechanics would want implements protected, and one tradesman after another would clamour for protection till the benefit the farmers would realise would be reducsd to nothing. Mr William Miles said that he laboured under a great disadvantage, as he was so dull of hearing. Ho had been anxious to take part in the proceedings of the meeting, but he had heard neither the original resolution nor the amendments. However, he understood that his friend opposite (Mr Sawle) had stated that he had been a practical farmer for so many years. He (Mr Miles) could not help rising to his feet. He could tell Mr Sawle and the meeting that he had been a practical farmer in the old country, and had been a strong supporter of Sir Robert Peel whilst that statesman had been an advocate of protection. He had ceased to be an admirer of Sir Robert Peel because he (Sir Robert) had done this [Here Mr Miles took off his coat and turned it inside out, amidst much laughter.] Mr W. A. Brown thought that the original tariff containing a duty on wheat should be supported. Remarks had been made as to the brewers and maltsters having made themselves into a happy family, he thought that there seemed to be another family equally as happy in the flour trade. The amendment was put to the meeting and lost. The original motion was then carried by a large majority. It was resolved that the resolution as passed, should be telegraphed to Wellington. A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the meeting.