IMPERIAL BUDGET.

Otago Witness, Issue 2358, 4 May 1899, Page 17

IMPERIAL BUDGET.

THHIDUTY ON COLONIAL WINE. " LONDON," April 26. The colonial Agents-general had an interview lasting an hour with Sir If. HicksBeach, Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the duties on wines imposed by the recent Budget. The result is kept secret, but it is understood Sir M. Hicks-Beach's reply was on the lines of his answer to a question in, the House of Commons — namely, that if a discrimination was made in favour of colonial wine he was afraid other wine would be shipped to the colonies and then reshipped to England, thus causing a loss to the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider the representations made. There is an impression that nothing will be conceded this year. The deputation to Sir M. Hicks-Beach consisted of the Agents-general for, Canada, New South Wales, Cape Colony, Victoria, New Zealand, and South Australia. Sir Andrew Clarke represented the grave injury which would be caused by the duties to the smaller wine-growers, who were struggling to develop a new industry. He combated Sir AT. Hicks-Beach's idea that the impost was too trivial to decrease the consumption. It is believed the question may be reconsidered in 1900. The stamp duties were not mentioned by the deputation. Fifty-five members of the House of Commons, chiefly Unionists, have signed a memorial requesting that the colonies be exempted from the increase in the wine duties. Bordeaux experts believe that the duties will not benefit Britain, mentioning the . fall in exports when American duties were raised and !Mr " Gro&chen's renouncing a similar project in 1888. April 27. Wine traders in the City have protested against the increase in the duty on wine as likely to cause a disturbance in buying and selling, and to inflict special hardship on Australians. Several speakers at the meeting threatened to abstain from making clearances of French wines. It was resolved to seek an interview with Sir M. Hicks-Beach on the subject. April 28. In the House of Commons Sir M. HicksBeach, replying to Mr Howard Vincent, said he was still considering the representations of the Agents-general against the wine duties. He added that the Australian wine trade had grown under equality of duties. The projected duties were small compared with the duties of Victoria and South Australia. He could not see, if any differential principle was accepted, why it should be extended to colonies levying a highly protective tariff on British manufactures. April 30.' In the House of Commons Sir M. HicksBeach, replying to a question by Mr T. B. Curran, M.P. for North Donegal, with referenoe to the wine duties, admitted that the New South Wales tariff was relatively favourable to Britain, but £450, the amount represented by the duty on New South Wales wines, was not sufficient to justify a departure from a settled fiscal policy. Mr Reid, the Premier, on behalf of the Premiers of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and New South Wales, -has instructed the Agent-general to make certain representations to Mr Chamberlain with reference to the duties on colonial wines. The contents of the message have not been disclosed.