THE BRITISH BUDGET.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 88, 15 April 1899, Page 5

THE BRITISH BUDGET.

&■ -SURPLUS OF £186,000. ' . KJEEW STAMP AND MORTGAGE ; : •■■' DUTIES. 1 £fCREASED DUTtf; .ON WINES. '" £: RETALIATION ON FRANCE. rf-■■•"'- ' LONDON, April 14. ■ In the Houseof Commons Sir M. IBcks-Beachv Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, delivered his. Budget speech. He said the past year's revenue had Exceeded expenditure by £ 186,000. He proposed to reduce the annual charge on the National Debt by £2,000,000. r Hence in theaeurrent year he would require £ 110,927,000, which waa £ 640,----000 in excess of the estimated revenue. The balance.he proposed to provide fly a new stamp duty of 5s per £100 6n foreign and colonial bonds, stoclts, and-shares-when negotiated in Britain, KSdv mortgage duty of 2s 6d per £100 on loan capital and debentures under the statute. He also proposed to make an increase in the import duty on wines, j The . total estimated increase from these sources was £870,----000. He also proposed to increase the companies capital diity from 2s 6d to 5s per £100 ; to infpose a duty of 6d on letters of allotment and remuneration ; is per gallon on still wine imported in bottle, and an extra 6d per gallon duty on other wines, including colonial. He showed that the value of Suez Canal shares held by the Brit- . ish Company had during two years increased by £ 4,000,000 against an expenditure of £1,000,000 in the Soudan.-. ./;■•■■ '' '~ \ •

In, the discussion which,, followed, Sir Henry Fowler, a member of the , v late- Gladstone Rosebery Ministries^ protested against pampering •witii -fhe sinking fund aad the prohibition of Australian wines.

Sir "VV. ■ Harcourt protested -against the. Repudiation of-the country's . obligation. It was one of the most disastrous proposals for repudiating' the lotion's bill, and was a travesty of finance.

Sir Charles Dilke said the wine duties woolrs lead to Britain losingfavoured 'natiori treatment. Sir M. Hk'ks-Beach,'•• in reply, ridiculed the idea'oJ retaliation, end said the coloaiai, Vdhtf' imports were -infinitesimal, aad-'tiie duty only, meant v difference of 18 per "bottlp on wine.'

The House formally sanctioned the proposals.

The imposition of increased wine duties hi attributed to the action of France in disregarding British remonstrances ■ with, regard to her arbitrary actions in Madagascar.-.

The Empire Trade League deput^iflUiSft,.^ &. Hicks-Beach in support of tne amendment moved by Sir Howard Vincent in favptlr of ex^ empting colonial wines from increased .duties. ■ >.• ■' ,-£:: '