Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria

1423
48145 . .Are they aule to compete there with the English lollies ?-I cannot answer for them.
48146. Is there any duty ?-I think 1~d.
48147. By llfr. Grimwade.-What is the duty upon sugar in New South Wales ?-Five shillings, I
think.
48148. By Mr. Zox.-Is there a factory here for the making of this canuied lemon peel ?-No.
48149. Mr. Lorimer put the question to you, suppose all the duties were taken off articles that you
require in your business, do yon think then that you would be enabled to compete with the English article ?
-.And the 2cl. a pound taken off?
48150. Twopence a pound off the peel, so much off the almonds, and £3 a ton off sugar, would you
then say you woura be in as good a position as if you had the duty now imposed upon the manufactmed
article ?-I think so, if the duty upon sugar was taken off.
48151. You said just now that in the event of some of those duties being abrogated that the public
would get the benefit of it ?--Yes.
48152. You would be able to sell cheaper ?-Yes.
48153. Will you tell the Commission, if you please, supposing you manufaetnrecl a ton of sugar into
lollies, how many lollies that ton of sugar would produce ?-.A ton of lollies, nearly.
48154. Do you know how mneh a pound (supposing the £3 duty was taken off sugar) that would be
upon the article itself ?-I am' not scholar enough to say.
48155. I will tell you what i.t is. It is about a farthing and a half per pound. Now, how would the
public get the benefit of it, r,upposing the £3 duty were taken off-that is, the general public who buy in
ounces or three-quarters of a pound or a pound-if the reduction were only one farthing and a half a pound?
-When I said the public, I meant tile storekeeper.
48156. Then, as far as you are concerned, the manufacturer and the storekeeper only get the benefit?
-Many of the little shops give away all the lollies they buy. It is nothing to us what they do with them
after they pay us.
48157. Then, in fact, the benefit the general public would get woulcl be infinitesimally small ?-It
would certainly.
48158. By the Chairman.-Is there anything further you wish to add ?-No.
Tl.e witness ~oitl.drew.
Robert Black sworn and examined.
llenry Burrows,
continued,
1st .May 1883.
48159. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a confectioner. Robert Black,
48160. Wholesale confectioner ?-Wholesale confectioner. lstli:IaylB83,
48161. Confectioneq manufacturer ?-l\fanufacturer.
48162. Where is your manufactory? -Victoria street, Hotham.
48163. How many hands do you employ ?-:Fifteen only; we are small.
48164. When did you start ?-Exactly ten years ago.
48165. How many hands had you t11en ?-One or two, my partner and myself, with the assistance of
a youth.
48166. You have heard the evidence of Mr. Burrows ?-Yes.
48167. Do you agree with that evidence ?-Quite, excepting in this matter-a question put to him
about prices. He said 50s. and 60s. were the prices now, and some time ago 40s. and 50s., and it was asked
whether the tariff affected that, but that was while we had a duty of 2d. a pound. It was only local competition
and folly that brought it down to those prices ; but the prices before the duty was put on were very
much higher than 50s. or 60s. and 40s. or 50s.
48168. By Jlfr. Zox.-He saidlO~d. ?-Quite so ; this is a point I want to explain. It was not the
tariff that made the differ.ence in the price between the 40s. and 50s. and 50s. and 60s., but local competition.
The price at the time when the lollies were free of duty was very mnch higher than 50s. or 60s., possibly 9d.,
10d., and lid. a pound.
48169. By tlte Cltai1•man.-Before the 2d. duty was put on ?-Before the 2d. duty was put on; the
price is absolutely cheaper since the duty has been put on than it was before this duty.
•!8170. That is what Mr. Burrows started by saying ?-Quite so, but I think the evidence was misconceived.
48171. .About this 9d., l Od., and lld. a pound, when those prices ranged, was that during the time
the 1 d. duty was in operation ?-Yes, and before there was any duty at all. I may say that I was a confectioner
before this time, a good many years before that. .At that time we got 1s. a pmmd for lollies, and
we hall no duty upon lollies then.
48172. What was the effect of putting on the lc1. a pound which the Franeis Ministry gave
you ?-I was not in business at that time.
48173. You left it for a time?-Yes, I left it. Twenty-five years ago I was in the trade. At that
time there was no duty. Between that date and the time that this 1d. duty was put on, I was out of
business. I returned to business since then, and there has been a duty of 2d. a pound upon lollies ever
since I have been in business the second time.
48174. So you had no experience of the prices obtained while the Id. a pound duty was in
operation ?-None.
48175. You are only speaking now of the prices previous to any duty at all, and the prices during
the 2d. a pound tariff?-That is all.
48176. And we understand you to say that the competition between the local producers shortly after
the 2d. was put on had the effect of bringing clown the prices to 40s. and 50s. respectively ?-No, I wouhl
say to 50s, and 60s., it was folly that brought them clown to 40s. and 50s., a thing outside the tariff.
48177. It was competition at any rate ?-Competition, but outside the tariff-ill will, unfriendliness,'
48178. And since then the manufacturers have returned to the bther prices?-Yes.
48179. By Mr . .Llfcintyre.-Had a knock out ?-No; but we have wisely seen it was folly to sell
at any prices.
48180. I want to know what you mean by wisely ?-I think that it was very unwise to sell at 5s, a
cwt. less than you could produce it, simply because you were on lmfriendly terms with your neighbours.