BRITISH POLITICS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1649, 7 October 1903, Page 31

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY. MB BALFOUR AND FOOD TAXATION LONDON, October 4. Mr Balfour, interviewed by a “Daily Mail” representative, said: “Mr Chamberlain agrees with me that the country is not prepared to discuss food taxation. Mr Chamberlain tells me that he is bound with the colonies, therefore, to act as a missionary.” With regard to the food question, the “Daily Mail” credits Mr Chamberlain with proposing new food taxes to bring in ten millions which would replace the old food taxes of ten millions, ancl tlion to roinovo tho roniaining food •taxes of three millions by a ten per cent, tariff on foreign manufacturers, producing ten millions, and devoting part of this surplus to a reduction of the dfuty on tobacco. The “Standard,” in its money aracle, declares that city circles, while favouring Mr Balfour and a small tax on foodstuffs, asks for a more definite programme than Mr Balfour’s, and also inquires whether the reforms will be in the hands of the Cabinet or a committee of experts.

LONDON,, October 5. The “ Birmingham Post ” says that the resignation of the Duke of Devonshire, Lord President of the Council, has been, placed in Mr Balfour’s bands in the event of the Government policy exceeding certain limitations. Referring to Mr Chamberlain’s Hreface to the Tariff Committee articles, the " Standard ” deprecates “ angry rhetorc,” and considers the allusions to the colonies injudicious. “It would be wiser,” says the “ Standard,” “to avoid generalities, and submit a clear explanation as to how far it is proposed to go, and how it is proposed to meet the complexity of the claims of the colonies and India. It is not clear that the colonies are willing to accept fiscal union on reciprocal lines.” In his preface to a series of articles by the Vice-Secretary of che Imperial Tariff Committee, Mr Chamberlain emphasises the fact that the autonomous colonies have advanced, although cbey abjured Cobdenism. He contends that the prosperity of the workers has increased in a greater proportion in protected countries than in the United Kingdom, and invites Cobdenices to explain the stationary position of British exports and the great increase in these of protected ooun cries. Mr Chamberlain challenged Imperialist freetraders to show how to treat the colonial request for preference in return for reciprocal advantages. The colonies, he points out, are ever expanding, and are likely to give constantly increasing value for concessions, but if their proposals are rejected there is great danger of Britain losing her present trade.. He declares tha<. it is only the growth of colonial trade that has concealed the heavy decline in British foreign trade. . If the colonial wlvances are refused, he says, Britain may lose the colonies’ trade through higner duties and reciprocal arrangements being concluded with foreigners. (Per R.M.S. Sonoma at Auckland.) SAN FRANCISCO, September 5. The London “Daily Mail” has obtained what purports to be an outline of Mr Chamberlain’s fiscal proposals, which are said to be as follows:—A duty of 2s anjd 3s on wheat, and a heavier duty on flour, small duties on meat, eggs, dairy produce, and equivalent remission of duty on teas, sugar and tobacco • also two scales of duties on manufactured produces—lo per cent, and 20 per cent. With a view of securing reciprocity treaties with foreign nations the proceeds of these duties are to be devoted to the relief of the income tax or further remissions of duties on tea, sugar and tobacco. «