THE DEBATE ON THE PROPOSED DUTY ON BREADSTUFFS.

Colonist, Volume XII, Issue 1215, 31 August 1869, Page 7

THE DEBATE ON THE PROPOSED DUTY ON BREADSTUFFS.

Mr. Vogel moved his resolution for imposing an import duty of 9d. per cwt. on all kinds of grain, arid Is. on flour and other ground grain or pulse, such duty to be exigible only while prices are below the following : —Wheat and flour, 21s. per cwt.; wheat, 6s. 6d. per bushel; oats, 4s. 6d. per bushel; barley, ss. per bushel. The Treasurer, in a long and able speech, begged the House not to be afraid of the name of protection, pointing out how the circumstances of a young Colony-justified things which were unadvisable in older communities, and showing what immense results had accrued from the protective duty already imposed on English ales which had stimulated the manufacture of the Colonial article.

Mr. Stafford opposed the motion, not so much on account of the amount.of the duty, for that really made no difference in principle, but because it was the thin end of the wedge of protection. Tho duty, if imposed, would fall chiefly on the mining population, and even if in a small degree it benefited the farmer, its effect would be to set one class against another. The hon. member also read a private letter from John Stuart Mill, on the subject of protective duties in young Colonies.

Sir David Mo:nro supported the motion, because the present system was really one of protection to the consumer, instead of the producer.

Mr. Curtis could not see why grain and flour should not be taxed as well as other necessaries of life; but as ho considered necessaries were already over-taxed, he should vote against the motion. The money which the tax was intended to raise might be gained by doing away with the postal subsidies ; or by taking over to the General Government one half of the stamp duties now paid to the Provinces. Ho did not object to a limited amount of protection in a new country; but if the taxes on grain and flour were to be imposed on the ground of protection, he would oppose it on this ground. Mr. Macandkew and Mr. Gbaham supported the duty, because they thought if Australia taxed our grain we should only be doing right to give them tifc for tat. ■ ;

Mr. Btjnnt strongly opposed the motion, and said if money waß so badly wanted they could, if they really wished, save twice the sum this would raise by cutting down the estimates. He wanted the Government to go boldly into the subject of taxation, and make the tarift" include only a few articles of luxury, while the rest of the required revenue should be raised by a direct income or property tax. Mr. Macpaelane said the Auckland bakers found they could not make good bread without having some Australian or Califomian flour to mix with the New Zealand, and one ton of Adelaide flour gave 100 more loaves than a ton of New Zealand flour.

Mr. Bitbns said the South, to pleaso Auckland, had consented, some sessions ago, to a duty on timber, which fell entirely on the South; and it was very ungenerous of the North, now not to return the

compliment and give the South a duty on grain when it was wanted.

Mr. Fox urged the. Ho use to pass the motion as a temporary expedient to raise money which was ■wanted.

Mr. Richmond ridiculed the idea that £14,000 could be a very important sum to the Government. Mr. Fitzheebert supported the motion, and Mr. Tancbed and Mr. Stevens opposed it.

Mr. Vogel made a very good reply, and then the House divided, the resolution being rejected by 25 to 23, as follows :—

Ayes, 22—Messrs. Armstrong, Bell, Cavgill, Fitzherbert, Fox, Graham (teller), Hall, Howorth,Macandrew (teller), Main, M'Lean, Mete Kingi, Monro, Ormond, Reynolds, Rolleßton, Studholme, Tancred, Tarelia, Taylor, Vogel, Williamson. Noes, 25.—Messrs. Saigent, Bell, Barff, Birch, Bradshaw, Bunny, Clark, Collins, Creighton (teller), Curtis, Dingnaii (teller), Gallagher, Jollie, Kelly, Kerr, Ludlam, Macfarlane, Munro, O'Neill, Parker, Patterson, Richmond, Stafford, Swan, and Wells.