HC Deb 23 April 1903 vol 121 cc255-6

I have still £2,000,000 to give away, and this I propose to devote to the remission of indirect taxation. I need hardly say that there are many competing claims for this, but I think the strongest claim is that made on behalf of necessaries of life. Beer, spirits, and tobacco do not come within that category, and there remains coal, corn, sugar and tea. The Goal Tax does not fall on the consumer. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] It has not injuriously affected the quantity of exports, and I do not propose to interfere with that. There remain sugar, tea, and corn. Sugar has undoubted claims. If it cannot be called an actual necessary of life it is very near it, but to reduce that duty by one half would cost £3,000,000", and I have not got £3,000,000 to spare. My choice, then, is limited to tea and corn. Now tea, Sir, has many attractions: it is the easiest and least contentious subject of taxation, but it cannot be said to be dear. Nor do I think that a duty of 6d. on tea is very excessive or hard to bear. Tea is not strictly a necessary of life. ["Oh, oh."] Mr. Gladstone at one time spoke of tea and sugar as being harmless and beneficial articles. I am not sure that some people do not take too much of them, but one thing is certain, that the tea duty is not a tax on raw material.