§ It has been suggested that I ought to reimpose the sixpence on the tobacco duty taken off last year. Now, Sir, I am sorry to hear the cheers raised by mention of that suggestion, because I believe there are very grave objections to that proposition. I believe that it is suggested because of the belief that the reduction of the duty has been appropriated by the manufacturer and retailer, and has not reached the consumer. Now, Sir, I have made very careful inquiry into this matter, and I think that belief is an entire mistake. I will tell the Committee why. In the first place, the amount of tobacco retained for home consumption during the year, quite apart from abnormal clearances for which allowance has been made, has increased by more than twice the normal increase under the old rate of duty. That in itself is primâ facie proof that the consumer must have derived some benefit from the reduction; but I will go further. I have made careful inquiries in London and the provinces in this matter, and have obtained price lists of manufacturers and retailers, and I will give the' Committee the general results. I may venture. in the first place, to remind the Committee that last year I said the consumer would 1020 benefit in one of two ways—he would either pay less for the same amount of tobacco, or he would get more tobacco for the same payment as before. Now, there are two perfectly distinct kinds of tobacco consumed. There is the drier kind of tobacco, what is called in the trade, I believe, "packet tobacco," which is a more expensive tobacco, but is by no means on that account not consumed by the working classes; that tobacco has unquestionably been reduced in price. I have compared lists from various parts of the country, and I find that in many well-known brands of packet tobacco and cigarettes the price of that class of tobacco has been reduced by 8d. in the lb.—2d. in the lb. more than the reduction of duty. In other cases it has been reduced by 6d., 5½d., 4d., and 2d. in the lb. Of course, opportunity was taken for a general revision of prices. I do not want to detain the Committee with details of this nature, but I shall be happy to show honourable Members who take interest in this matter the figures I have obtained from the price lists, which amply bear out what I have said. Then, with regard to the cheaper class of tobacco, that has not, except in some few eases, been reduced in price. But what has happened? This has happened. That class of tobacco is moistened up to the utmost legal limit. Last year I reduced that legal limit of moisture by 5 degrees, and that amount of reduction of moisture was tantamount to compelling the retailer of that class of cheap tobacco to put less water and 3d. more tobacco into every lb. of tobacco than before, and, therefore, to the extent of 3d. in the lb., consumers of that class of tobacco must have benefited by the reduction. Further, I am assured on the best authority that this tobacco is made from leaves of better quality than it was before; and, further, that in no case has the consumer suffered from what is notorious, the increase of price in the raw leaf during the last 18 months. The price of the raw leaf from which this cheap tobacco is manufactured has gone up 2d. in the lb., but no addition in price has been made to the consumer on that account. Therefore, again the consumer of this class of tobacco has found benefit from the reduction made in duty last year. What would happen if the duty 1021 were again raised? What was the reason why the consumer had not obtained in all cases the full benefit of the reduction, or did not obtain it as soon as might have been expected in others? This was the reason. The great confusion and disturbance in the trade caused by the alteration in the duty. If you were to alter the duty again this year you would double that confusion and disturbance in the trade, and that, added to the increased cost of the raw material which I have mentioned, would certainly be used to put up the cost of tobacco to the consumer to a higher price than was charged before the reduction. Well, Sir, I do not want to cause that, but I had another object than the benefiting of the consumer in proposing the reduction of the duty last year. It was this: I saw an article the prime cost of which as a manufactured article was increased in many cases 500 per cent. by the duty. I saw that the consumption of that article, in spite of the fondness of all classes of our population for it, was much less per head of the population of this country than in Continental countries where the duty is lower. I was anxious at least to take a step towards the establishment of a reserve of force in one of the greatest sources of our revenue. I knew then, and I know now, that this could not be effected in one year, but I do urge the Committee to give the experiment a fair trial in the interest of the revenue. I do assure them of my complete conviction that, if they will do so they will reap from it a golden harvest in the future by increased consumption. I anticipate a great increase in consumption in the year now before us, and I am convinced that it would be a foolish, an unwise policy, for the sake of a small temporary gain which would only he small on account of the large amount of clearances in anticipation of an increase of duty—for the sake of a small gain of that kind to give up the hope of what I really believe will be a golden harvest in the future. I think it would he wiser to look to other sources for the taxation we require.