Reciprocity.

Regarding the proposed reciprocity treaty between Canada and South Austra ia and New Zealand be thought the Colonial treasurer had made a mistake in including both treaties in one bill, for there were many objections to the Treaty with Canada that did not exist against that with South Australia. The in-clusion of both caused the Bill to be rejected, but it was brought up again altered so as to refer only to South Australia. Under The proposed treaty: South Australia was to have opened her ports free to New Zealand hops, barley, oats, and horses, while New Zealand was to have admitted for South Australia olive oil, wine, salt, and fruit. Some objection was raised to the free introduction of wine in the interest of wine makers at Wangunui and perhaps elsewhere in New Zealand, and it was agreed to impose half duties on wines, but the result was that South Australia rejected the treaty. This was a great misfortune for New Zealand and especially for the Nelson Provincial District, inasmuch as under that treaty they would have been able to export all their hops In 1894 the acreage in hops in the Colony was 778, and of these no fewer than 751 acres were in the Nelson District, the total production being 7,665 cwt, of which 3,940 cwt. Were consumed in the Colony, leaving available for export 3,725 cwt, the remission of the duty of 6d per lb upon which would have meant no less a sum than £10,400. The remission of the duty on barley would also have been directly beneficial to the Nelson district, while in regard to oats the farmers of the large Southern provinces would have been largely benefited and through them the Colony generally, it had been said that one of the largest exporters of wine from South Australia was instrumental in causing New Zealand to provide for the charge of half duty as it was contended that without duty inferior wines would have been shipped to this Colony, but he would have thought that that would soon have cured itself. During last session it was proposed that