The check, however, came on fresh fruit— viz., apples, pears, plums, etc., etc., Id per lb. — Mr T. Mackenzie moved to strike the item out, but the Treasurer urged the retention of the duty as a protection to local fruit growers. — Mr Lang considered that all friends of the country settlers must support this duty, as it would permit of fruit now rotting beneath the tree* being sent to mar ket. — The Premier urged that the duty should be passed, as it was only an increase of Jjdperlb.— Mr Pirani said that £8,000 of duly had been collected on this item last year, and the increased duty now propoiecT would simply prevent any importation of fruit. — Mr (NlarsdeD) Thompson said it was the sudden flooding oi the market with im portations that disturbed trade. What was wanted was the regulation of the market This duty would be encouraging our growers to produce more fruit, and to be independent of foreign supplies. — Mr Pinkerton, Mr Earnshaw, and Mr Millar stoutly opposed any increase of the fruit duties, while the last-named said he intended to oppose all impositions attempted to be placed on the necessaries of life. — Captain Russell made a strong onslaught on the tax. Fruit-growers intimated to him last year that the average value the year through did not exceed 5s per case of 481 b. Now freight was estimated at 7Jd per case. The duty proposed was therefore 100 per cent, ou ih? value of the fruit. If we in New Zealand were go lazy or so incompetent that we could not grow fruit to compete with that of Tasmania, we should not claim to be a go-ahead people. Not long ago a Californian owner of a fruit ranch was stopping with him for some time, and he told him that in California the law required growers to spray their trees at certain times of the year, and they were not permitted to grow certain sorts liable to blight. Yet there was no fruit which could not bo pro duced in California to pay well at £d per lb. If that, were the case, did we want a protec tion of 100 per can',. 