§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
§ *MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.) rose to move a new clause to amend Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1901, the object of which was, he said, to abolish the sugar tax as from the end of the year.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)on a point of order, said he had an Amendment down which preceded that of the hon. Member.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI under stood that that was withdrawn on account of the discussion that took place last night. If it is not withdrawn it of course takes precedence.
§ MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he had not withdrawn it; on the contrary, he wished to move it. The new clause he had to move was in the following words. "On and after the first day of July, 1905, three-halfpence shall be substituted for threepence as the increase in the duty on stripped tobacco under Section 2, Sub-section 1, of the Finance Act, 1904." He moved it on behalf of the tobacco trade section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, who had taken the lead in this matter throughout, and had placed themselves in communication with all the members of the trade in the United Kingdom who were interested in this particular question. They sent a memorial to, as they believed, all the firms in the trade who would be affected in any way by the duty. In all 175 firms wore approached. Of these 126 signed, sixteen declined, and thirty-three made no reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the discussion on the preceding night, pointed to the fact that there were 380 licensed manufacturers, and he seemed to infer that, therefore, the memorial could not be taken as repre- 245 sentative of the general view, but he would point out that those who were not approached were mainly cigar and cigarette makers in a small way, who were not really affected by these duties. He held, therefore, he was justified in claiming that the memorial was sent to all firms really affected. Now it made two alternative suggestions—one to equalise the duty at 3d., and the other to reduce the duty on strips to 1½d. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that there was discussion in the tobacco trade on the point, and no doubt there was some difference of opinion, but at a later meeting it had been decided to put forward the proposal embodied in his Amendment as a kind of intermediate suggestion. It was thought that a duty of 1½d. would produce some revenue and admit a certain amount of strips for the relief of those branches of the trade which required strips in order to carry on their business.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the preceding night told them it was admitted that there should be some differentiation between leaf and strips. That, no doubt, was an arguable point. The amount was very trifling, and it was not to be denied that whatever reason there might be for proposing some differentiation between leaf and strips, threepence was an excessive figure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon on the preceding night made a valuable suggestion—namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should appoint a small Departmental Committee to inquire into the matter. So far as he knew, the trade would be satisfied with the appointment of a small Departmental Committee, provided that steps were taken promptly and a competent body were chosen which would receive evidence. They would be quite prepared to abide by the decision of a tribunal of that kind. The present delay was exceedingly prejudicial to the trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them he was quite prepared to consider the suggestion, but lie suggested that it would be necessary to wait until the present stock of strips had been exhausted. But that would be too late. The strips were running out every day. There were now 246 only about 15,000,000 pounds unsold, and the market was in danger of being cornered, if it were not already so. Until a fresh supply of strips was allowed to enter the country there was danger of stocks appreciating in value as they diminished in quantity. The proposal to reduce the increase in the duty to 1½d. would at any rate relieve the situation and it would involve the least inconvenience to the trade. He begged to move.
§ Clause (Amendment of 4 Edw. VII., c. 7, s. 2, as to duty on stripped tobacco)—(Mr. Charles McArthur)— brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division. He was in favour of some immediate steps being taken, because the manufacturers in the North of England, with whom he had been in communication on the matter, were feeling this grievance very much indeed. They were in this position, that they could not obtain more then threepence per ounce for this tobacco, and at the same time they were placed at this great disadvantage that they must make tobacco of a certain kind. They could not import the whole leaf as it would not pay them to do so.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.May I ask the hon. Member to tell me why they cannot import the whole leaf? On the other hand it is argued that nobody can import strips with the present duty. Simultaneously the hon. Gentleman tells me that those for whom he speaks cannot afford to import the whole leaf.
§ MR. BRIGGsaid they could not afford to pay the price for the stripped leaf. They did pay it, but they felt that they were being ruined by doing so. Very soon they would have to give up selling altogether.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not want to interrupt the hon. Member 247 again but I can assure him it is with a genuine desire to understand his point. I understand his argument is that they cannot afford to buy strips at 3s. 3d., but what I do not understand is why they do not import the whole leaf also, and strip it themselves?
§ MR. BRIGGsaid so far as he could learn it was mainly because they would have to import the leaf in very small quantities. Then they would have to have all the machinery necessary for stripping and they would only be able to keep that machinery going part of the time. Of course that would be more expensive. The great objection, he gathered, was that there was a difference between those who made finest twist and those who made coarse twist. The large manufacturers, he was told, had a machine by which they bruised the stalk and it thus became incorporated with the tobacco, whereas small manufacturers could not employ the stalk in any shape or form. They complained very severely, and, unless they had some relief they feared that their trade would become extinct. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he could to relieve the difficulty.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)said they had no desire to hurry the Chancellor of the Exchequer into a premature decision, but he was sure his right hon. friend would do his best to remedy any grievance which was felt. As the stock ran out there was danger of loss being incurred by the small manufacturers. He doubted, however, whether the clause proposed would provide a satisfactory remedy.
§ * MR. RITCHIE (Croydon)regretted that his hon. friend had thought it necessary to move the Amendment, as he had understood that he would be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a promise that he would appoint a Committee, if he found a Committee were necessary, to inquire into the matter. This seemed to be a question eminently fitted to be referred to a small Departmental Committee. What was the position of things? It had been alleged that differentiation created a situation in which there was a considerable amount of protection which militated 248 very much against certain manufacturers of tobacco in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other hand declared that he had had no desire, in putting on this tax, to introduce any element of protection, and he did not doubt that no element of protection had been intended—he meant no substantial element of protection, however. It was clear that when a tax was put upon an article which was manufactured it became necessary to put a different tax on the raw material from that which was put on the manufactured article, and it was almost impossible to adjust things so as to prevent the smallest element of protection. It had always been the custom in cases of the kind that where there was a chance of their being an element of injury to a manufacture, the small amount of protection that must be given was not considered improper. He was sure his right hon. friend, when he imposed this tax, had no idea of introducing any contentious element of protection; but it was now contended that there was a very large element of protection in this tax, and he rather gathered from what his right hon. friend had said that he was inclined to consider that the position was not a satisfactory one. If that were so what could be better than to ask some independent tribunal to deal with the matter? Of coarse his right hon. friend, having regard to the discussion yesterday, might of his own motion propose some Amendment which would render such a Committee unnecessary, and he could not help thinking that that was probably in his right hon. friend's mind when he did not give that unqualified promise of a Committee which some of his friends desired. He was afraid that his right hon. friend must recognise that he was somewhat in the position of a suspect in this matter; but he would be quite satisfied if he would of his own motion make some fair proposal, or, if he could not do that, would say at once that he would appoint a Committee.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must recognise that the promise he made on thy previous night to appoint a Committee at the expiration of some undeterminate period could not 249 possibly be accepted by the supporters of the Amendment. He certainly did not regret that it had been moved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was quite mistaken in thinking that the objection to this duty was based entirely on its protective element. It was objected to from the business point of view. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had needlessly disturbed a trade in America—he did not know whether that was intended as the beginning of a retaliatory policy towards America, but if it were it was a very weak beginning. Again, he had needlessly disturbed a great trade in this country which he was warned he was doing when he put on the differential duty. He paid no heed to that warning at the time, but a year's experience had fully justified it. Then the right hon. Gentleman had protected, or apparently protected, a trade in England which refused to allow itself to be galvanised into existence. The mistake that had been made was the anticipation that strip would continue to be imported. The average import for the four years previous to the imposition of the duty was 50,000 casks. Since this differential duty was imposed the import had shrunk to about 10,000 casks, or one-fifth of the average of the preceding four years, to the detriment of the small manufacturers who were dependent on these imported strips. He thought that was damning proof that so far from laying the ground for raising the revenue the right, hon. Gentleman had laid the ground for destroying an important industry which he had not succeeded in transferring to this country. If his right hon. friend was prepared to promise a Committee, those interested in the matter were so satisfied with the evidence they could lay before it that such a proposal could probably be accepted. They believed that the evidence they could place before a Committee was of so overwhelming a character as to ensure a verdict which would result in the right hon. Gentleman reverting to the position foreshadowed in the Amendment. But the dim and distant suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that a Committee should be appointed either by himself or his successor when the existing stocks of strips were 250 exhausted was not one that could be reasonably expected to be accepted as a substantial contribution to the settlement of a vexed question.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)said he had been approached by gentlemen interested in the trade, and they had not objected to this duty on the ground of its protective character. They did not concern themselves with the fiscal dispute. They only considered the matter as it affected their trade. When it was first put on they formed a rough estimate that 2d. should be about the difference, but experience had enabled them to come to the conclusion that a duty of 1½d. would place the two classes of tobacco on an even footing, and they were confident that they could establish that before an independent body of experts. These gentlemen, he was sure, would be satisfied with an inquiry, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant it. He saw no objection to the tax if it incidentally protected the trade, that not being its purpose. If the tax had originally been imposed as a protective duty he for one would have opposed it, because that would have been contrary to the under-taking given by the Prime Minister that nothing in the nature of protection should be introduced during the life of the present Parliament. But that was not the reason for imposing it. The real idea—which, however, had not been realized—was to create more Work in the country, and the tax certainly appeared to him to be reasonable in itself. He had, however, had representations made to him that the duty of 3d. was too much, and he thought this was a question which might be referred to a Committee of inquiry for definite settlement. At any rate, it was not reasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to upset his entire Budget scheme by assenting to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)joined in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an inquiry into the amount of the duty. He did not think it had been made out that the duty was protective. He had always understood it to be a canon of fiscal 251 doctrine that protective duties were borne by the consumer, and in the whole course of that debate he had not heard it suggested that this particular duty was borne by the consumer. On the contrary, it was claimed that it was the tobacco producer who was the sufferer. He was convinced that it was not the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should do more than redress an inequality in the incidence of the tax—that it should make matters right as between the different kinds of tobacco. Personally he would not be sorry to see the Excise duties on tobacco done away with altogether. Mr. Mitchell Henry, in a very interesting work, had described how formerly a rough kind of tobacco plant was grown in Ireland and the people were able to smoke it to their own satisfaction and advantage, but the Irish tobacco industry was stamped out absolutely by the Excise duties and a very real wrong was thereby done to the people of Ireland.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)I rise to order. Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss the question of Irish tobacco?
§ MR. J. F. HOPEsaid it had been alleged that this was a protective tax and in dealing with that argument he had only incidentally referred to the fact that the tobacco was formerly grown in Ireland.
* THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. Member that the growth of Irish tobacco does not seem to have much to do with the Amendment.
§ MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he only desired to say that those who accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of having desired to introduce protection by imposing this duty did small justice to his ordinary intelligence. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had repudiated the idea. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was incapable of adopting such a course, which would have been not only dishonest, but extremely foolish from his own point of view.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEKLAINsaid he regretted that the subject should 252 have been reopened. He had understood that the discussion on the previous night had been deemed sufficient by his hon. friend, and he thought that was the understanding on both sides of the House. He did not desire to delay the Committee by rearguing the whole question, which he had dealt with last night. If he had thought that this was a purely protective measure, even if he had had a wish to do so, he would have considered himself precluded from proposing it last year; but it was proposed simply for revenue purposes, and as such he had commended it to the House. There had been much discussion as to the exact measure of differentiation, and the hon. Member for Liverpool seemed to think that there should be no differentiation at all; but either he did not speak the mind of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce or opinion had greatly changed upon that body, for they had expressed approval of his proposals provided that consideration was given to stocks already imported. A concession was made in that direction last year, and, of course, to extend that to all strips would put an end to that special concession. He could not say, of course, how the stocks had been disposed of; he could only say what remained in bond at a given date. He had always admitted the difficulties and complications in the way of arriving at a proper differentiation, and he thought that gentlemen interested in one particular kind of tobacco were apt to overlook other varieties. He had taken what appeared to be a fair average, and could not admit that a provision intended to secure a reasonable amount of revenue amounted to prohibition of importation. It was clear, however, that it was a matter to be carefully watched.
He had no insuperable objection to a Departmental Committee of inquiry; but what he had in mind was the possibility that, with all the facts before him, he might come to the conclusion that a modification such as was suggested might be desirable, and then a Committee would be unnecessary. At the time he made the concession alluded to hon. Gentlemen said it would give rise to a certain amount of uncertainty, which would be a great disadvantage, and that was quite true. He would 253 gladly have left the duty as it was, and he was not at all sure that that would not have been the best course. The conditional promise, however, held good When directly challenged, he had said he made his proposals for a permanent duty to avoid uncertainty in the trade; but if those who represented the trade pressed to have the subject reopened the responsibility for creating uncertainty must be with them. In the face of statements he had made it would be impossible to assent to the change at the present time, because on the faith of those statements business arrangement had been carried on. Therefore it would be a breach of faith on his part to make such a change, because those engaged in the trade might fairly say that the had been misled by the statement he made last year, and they could fairly argue that had they understood that the matter was open to revision this year they would have made other arrangements. He was not alone in that opinion He observed in many quarters, both amongst traders and from the reports of Company meetings in trade journals, that there was a certain sense of relief when the Budget statement was announced and is was seen that the tobacco duty had not been altered. The mere rumour that he might modify his proposal in regard to tobacco had disturbed the trade, and all they wanted was that he should leave tobacco alone. A good deal had been said about the position of small manufacturers, yet he was not able to understand the difficulties supposed to afflict them. But it was a highly technical matter, and he would be ready to consider their case when presented to him. He thought himself that the disturbance of the trade was much more due to trade combinations than to the operations of proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hardly entitled to animadvert upon the action of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool in bringing this matter forward that day, as there was no pledge or understanding that the question should not be again discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman had desired to 254 animadvert upon anybody, he might have done so upon certain Members on his own side who, as usual, got up, not to discuss the question on its merits, but merely to consume time.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that it would have been somewhat unusual if he had got up to reply at once, as several hon. Member on either side were rising to criticise his action. He did not know whether the rule as to a Minister's replying immediately he was challenged was to apply to every debate.
§ Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was obvious to every Member who heard them that some of the speeches were not delivered for the purpose of throwing any light on the question. The point of the present discussion was whether there should be a Committee of inquiry and whether the right hon. Gentleman should at once make the concession for which the hon. Member for the Exchange Division asked. Personally he agreed with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had to continue or rescind this tax on his own responsibility. Nothing could be worse from the point of view of the trade than the uncertainty which would be engendered by the appointment of a Committee, and the expectations of an alteration to which it would give rise. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that it was the doubts which he himself threw on his own tax which led to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. All the figures given in the debate had gone to show that the duty, although not imposed for protective purposes, had had protective results, and that the right hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to remove an anomaly, had imposed a tax which had been extremely detrimental to some portions of the trade and very beneficial to others. The effect upon the trade was the greatest condemnation of the tax as originally proposed and now levied. But for the gift of nearly a quarter of a million of money to certain privileged merchants, the paralysing effect if the tax upon the branch of the trade particularly concerned would have been 255 even more complete; and now the granting of that money was made a reason for not putting the tax on a fair basis because it would damnify those privileged persons. That was surely an object lesson in regard to taxes imposed not purely for revenue purposes but with some ulterior object in view.
But what was the actual financial position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter? Nobody had suggested that sales would be stopped if by the grant of £200,000 or £250,000 strips were enabled to come into the market, or the in the first year and possibly the second the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not obtain a substantial revenue from the tax. But from the very beginning the amount received had been far smaller than it would have been from a general tax on the trade. The mere fact of proposing the tax for other than revenue purposes had meant the loss of one-third of the revenue that would otherwise have been derived, and the net result of the tax was a sum of £400,000. But what were likely to be the receipts from the tax during the present and particularly future years? The figures as to the imports of strips were remarkable, showing as they did a fall since the imposition of the tax from an average for the first quarter of the year of 15,000 casks to 2,000, most of which was to be used for export purposes and therefore would not come in for taxation at all. Unless strips came, in there would be no revenue, and the Committee ought to know on what the right hon. Gentleman based his sanguine estimate that the revenue would keep up to its present level. On the whole he was glad the tax was imposed last year, because, while not affecting any really large or serious interest, it afforded an object-lesson of the results of using taxation for other than purely revenue purposes. The more successful a protective duty was, the less revenue it would bring in. There were two Questions he desired to ask. The first was: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any figures showing that the tax had led to increased employment at home? The other was: Could he disprove the statement that the amount of stalk taken for drawback was smaller than before the tax? Unless the right hon. Gentle- 256 man could prove that the amount was not smaller, it meant that the stalk was going into consumption and therefore that the quality of tobacco had deteriorated as the result of this tax. He had hoped that after his experience in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have come down and, admitting that he had made a mistake, express his willingness to abolish the tax instead of saying that he would reconsider it on some future occasion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said his sympathies were largely with the hon. Member for Liverpool who had moved this new clause. He did not think it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give privileges either to classes or to strips, for that was protection. Where were they now? The hon. Member for Liverpool had proposed a clause which would come into operation immediately and would put tobacco upon a proper basis in the present year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied that he was prepared to consider favourably the appointment of a Departmental Committee, but there was not much in that. He also said that there was no insuperable objection to this course. Of course here was not. Whether such a Committee was or was not appointed, he saw no approach towards the acceptance of the proposal now before the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he might reconsider his question and that he might come to be conclusion that the change proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool was necessary. They wished to know, if he did come to that conclusion, would he make the change this year or next year? Whenever he heard a Minister suggest a Royal Commission or a Committee he knew the idea was to shelve he question. A Committee was not required in order to ascertain the merits or demerits of this proposal. The mover if this clause had received no concession whatever, and whatever alteration was made in the tobacco duty would certainly not be made before next year. He did not know how the mover of this Amendment felt in regard to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 257 and, if he were in his position, as no concession had been made he would go to a division.
§ * MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)said that the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pursuing was distinctly favourable to the large tobacco trusts. It was practically impossible in the small establishments for the whole leaf tobacco to be used, as they had been accustomed for many years to using strips. The reason was that the manipulation of the stems of the tobacco became much more difficult because of the larger percentage of moisture which they absorbed in manufacture. All were anxious that the conditions of the law should be carefully maintained, the manufacturers, however, were liable to find themselves with results of excessive moisture in the production of their manufactured tobacco. He considered it was undesirable that the smaller manufacturers should find themselves liable to be charged with unscrupulous dealing because of the difficulty of maintaining the standard of moisture specified by the law. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persisted in maintaining the threepence in the pound they would be mulcted in a very serious loss. The small manufacturers who produced one class of manufactured tobacco had not the power to use the balance of the stems taken from their purchase of whole leaf, and therefore he urged the Government to meet the interests of a large number of traders who had conducted a respectable business in the past and whose business now would practically be ruined. The difference between threepence and three-halfpence—which was the proposal before the House—was sufficient to ruin a very large number of people. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his policy he was informed that it would be followed by a large number of failures. The margin of profit was so small that it would not allow the difference, and the conditions were full of anxiety for a large number of respectable traders whose interests he wished to support.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that they had dismissed the whole substance of this question the previous night, and they separated at any rate, 258 with the general understanding that they were going to discuss sugar the first thing that day, and he was then encouraged by the general approval of Members present to hope that they might finish the Budget before dinner. He appealed to the House to come to a decision upon this question as rapidly as possible.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid that, after the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"]
§ MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said that Scotch tobacco importers felt themselves precluded from approaching the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, because he gave them last year a rebate on existing stocks, and while they objected to his present proposals they felt in honour bound not to approach him again so soon. Anyone who had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not help feeling that he had not justified the continuance of this duty at 3d The right hon. Gentleman stated that the only thing which prevented him from correcting what was demanded now was the fact that he gave a pledge last year that it should not be interfered with. Would he do any harm to anyone if he reduced the duty? On the contrary, he would benefit the tobacco trade and the Exchequer as well, because if this duty was continued there would practically be no revenue. By reducing it to 1½d. there was a chance of some revenue accruing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not attempted to justify the 3d. duty. It had been clearly proved that it came to not more than ½d. a 1b., but, adding interest, 1d. was the utmost really that had been estimated as the cost of stripping. If that was so, the 3d. duty must be a protective duty to the extent of 2d. per 1b. He was quite willing to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for having no idea of protection in his mind when he introduced the tobacco duty, just as a predecessor, when he introduced the corn tax, had no conception of the ramifications that would ensue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was convinced that it was protective, and he 259 thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself in the same position to-day. He would give satisfaction to the House, the tobacco importers, and the country, if he were to do what was asked for in this Amendment. The hon. Member felt in honour bound to support the Amendment. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would face the facts and accept the Amendment, for he had conceded both in his speech last night and his speech that day that this was an excessive duty.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said several representations had been made to him by Irish manufacturers in regard to this tax. Some of the largest manufacturers of tobacco in the United Kingdom were fortunately living in Ireland. This was a much more serious matter than the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently recognised, because it meant the extinction of the small manufacturers altogether. He could not understand the attitude of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division in this matter. If he were in earnest in bringing forward the Amendment he ought to go to a division in order to test the opinion of the House upon the urgency of the question which he had promised to champion. The hon. Member should not be satisfied with the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it simply amounted to a statement that he would probably consider the question at a suitable time. If the right hon. Gentleman failed to come to a decision he would appoint a Departmental Committee, which meant that the question would probably be shelved for ever. He had promised to his constituents to take action in this matter and he meant to carry out his promise. There was no doubt that if this duty was retained they would only play into the hands of the trusts.
§ MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any promise which had any substance in it he should have been desirous to see the Amendment withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had given them nothing. He had told them that he would at 260 some unknown date appoint a Committee in order to consider the whole subject. That was not a sufficient promise to induce the hon. Member for the Exchange Division to abandon the course he had taken up on behalf of the tobacco trade. He appealed to the hon. Member not to withdraw the Amendment. A protest ought to be made on behalf of the tobacco trade to show that this tax, originally unfair, was still unfair, although some small concessions had been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was a revenue tax, and pointed to the £400,000 he had obtained from it. That revenue had been obtained exclusively from the holders of the existing stocks of strips. They held a commodity which entered into free and open competition with leaf tobacco which was not subjected to the extra duty of 3d. The holders of strips were bound to pay this duty. This was because it was said the public would pay them a higher price for strips than for leaf. Before this tax was introduced the price of the ordinary quality of leaf tobacco might be said to be 6d. per lb., and the same quality of strips would have stood at 7½ per lb. These were the prices before the duty was paid in bond. They were sold out of bond at 3s. 6d. and 3s. 7½d. per lb. respectively. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and said the trade were all wrong when they declared that strips were only worth 3s. 7½d. as against 3s. 6d. for leaf tobacco; the true fact was that strips were worth, not 1½d. but 4½d. more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the discovery that the merchants and manufacturers who were dealing in strips were all wrong in regard to the prices of the two articles. They thought that there was only 1½d. of difference in value due to the actual cost of stripping, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the difference in price ought to be 1½d. plus 3d., because the price of stripped, owing to people having to pay 3d. to take it out of bond, would be 3s. 10½d.
The right hon. Gentleman informed the House last year that all his calculations were really for more smokable tobacco than leaf, and that the trade had been 261 all wrong. The trade had had the advantage for a year of the ripe experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and still in the estimation of the trade leaf and stripped had only 1½d. difference in value. This 1½d. duty had to be found by the owners of the strips out of their own pockets. For immediate and actual purposes this duty would have no effect on the tobacco trade. There were no strips at present imported and taken from the Custom House at 3s. 3d. per 1b. except in a few cases of a very special kind of tobacco, the quantity of which was very insignificant. For all commercial purposes the only strips which were now taken out of bond were those on which only 1½d. per lb. was payable. Those who objected to this tax in the form proposed, asked that the law should be that strips hereafter imported should pay 1½d. per lb. Before this change of the law was made last year, the practice was to accumulate strips in bond in large quantities. Last year there were 110,000,000 lbs. of strips in bond. That supply was sufficient to last two years, All the strips brought into the country now would have to be kept in bond as the old strips were, for they had to mature in bond. All that the Committee would do by passing the Amendment would be to inform the tobacco trade what the duty payable months hence would be. If that duty was reduced to 1½d. per lb. it would enable stocks of strips to grow up and the duty would be got not this year but the year after. If the present system were continued the growth of the stock of strips would be precluded, because strips had to be kept in bond before passing through the Custom-house in order to mature. The only chance of getting revenue from strips was to induce tobacco merchants to buy strips, keep them in bond, and release them on payment of 1½d. per lb.
The Committee should remember that although this was, in its total amount, an insignificant tax. the individuals affected by it, although few in number, were very seriously affected. It was no compensation to any man who was being deprived of every prospect of employment to tell him that this trade was a small trade, and that the great interests of the nation were not affected 262 by it. If this tax was an unjust tax no individual should be allowed to suffer from it. At the beginning of last year, before the tax was imposed, the stocks of strips amounted to 110,000,000 lbs.; there was a great trade in strips; firms imported them; firms dealt in them, and now all that business was gone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was only getting revenue from the strips which were in bond. If this Amendment were adopted these men would be enabled to do a limited business in strips again. Why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that he had made a mistake? The right hon. Gentleman had not made out the merits of the case in behalf of this tax. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who supported free trade to remember the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when this tax was originally introduced. It was introduced as a protective tax, though it was true that that notion was afterwards abandoned when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reminded of the pledges given that protection was not to be introduced during the present Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of what Mr. Gladstone had done in 1863, said—
There is no doubt what was Mr. Gladstone's object at that time. He intended to throw open the tobacco trade to foreign competition, as other trades had then recently been thrown open; and he explained that he allowed the difference between the rates on manufactured and on raw tobacco as a full and fair equivalent for all charges—both the direct and the indirect charges—to which the British manufacturer was subject, and 'in order that the labourers who were employed in the manufacture, amongst whom were women and children, might be well looked after.' What has is been the result? In the first place, I think it is demonstrable that there was an error in the calculations on which Mr. Gladstone worked. He himself, indeed, subsequently corrected the error, but he did not alter the rates which he had proposed, and the result is that the home manufacturer making for home consumption has a larger measure of—shall I say compensation?—than Mr. Gladstone intended."Compensation" was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's word for protection; and he showed, with perfect truth, that the existing rates did give protection to the home manufacturer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—It is clear that the stripped leaf has a definite and distinct value differing from that 263 which the whole leaf enjoys. It is not right that this separate value, this process of manufacture which the leaf has undergone, should not, like all other processes of manufacture which add to the value, be marked on our scale and find its reflection in the appropriate way.The "appropriate way" was, of course, that it was to receive compensation in the same way as other processes of manufacture, and that was by protection. His objections to this tax were that it had
§ failed in its purpose, it was unjust in its incidence, and it was bringing in no revenue; and on all these grounds he heartily supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158: Noes, 221. (Division List No, 186.)
265| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Grant, Corrie | Parrott, William |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) | Partington, Oswald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Allen, Charles P | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Perks, Robert William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hammond, John | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Asquith,Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry | Harcourt, Lewis | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hardie, J Keir (MerthyrTydvil) | Price, Robert John |
| Austin, Sir John. | Harwood, George | Rea, Russell |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Bell, Richard | Helme, Norval Watson | Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th |
| Blake, Edward | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Boland, John | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roche, John |
| Brigg, John | Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk. | Runciman, Walter |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Jacoby, James Alfred | Russell, T. W. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Johnson, John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Joicey, Sir James | Shackleton. David James |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Burt, Thomas | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cameron, Robert | Kearley, Hudson E. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan,W. | Spencer,Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Kilbride, Denis | Sullivan, Donal |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kitson, Sir James | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lamont, Norman | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Langley, Batty | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.) | Thomas JA(Glamorgan, Gower |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Thomson, F. W. (York,W.R.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Tomkinson, James |
| Crombie, John William | Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington | Toulmin, George |
| Delany, William | Levy, Maurice | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Lough, Thomas | Ure, Alexander |
| Dillon, John | Lundon, W. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Doogan, P. C. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dunn, Sir William | McCrae, George | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Edwards, Frank | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mooney, John J. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw's Bghs | Moulton, John Fletcher | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Murphy, John | Wills, Arthur Walters(N.Dorset |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, Fred, W.(Norfolk, Mid.) |
| Field, William | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Findlay, Alexander (Lanark,NE | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersf'd |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | O'Connor, James (WicklowW.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Dowd, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John | O'Malley, William | McKenna and Mr. Dalziel. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Garfit, William | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Morreil, George Herbert |
| Allhusen, Angustus Henry Eden | Gordon, Hn. J E.(Elgin&Nairn) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Morton, Arthur H. Alymer |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- | Mount, William Arthur |
| Arrol, Sir William | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Myers, William Henry |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon.SirH. | Graham, Henry Robert | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Grenfell, William Henry | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Gretton, John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Gunter, Sir Robert | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Hamilton RtHnLordG (Midd'x | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Balfour, Rt HnGerald W(Leeds | Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd'nderry | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hardy Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bill, Charles | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bingham, Lord | Helder, Augustus | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Purvis, Robert |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H F(Middlesex | Hobhouse RtHnH.(Somers't,E | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Brassey, Albert | Hope,J.F (Sheffield,Brightside | Rankin, Sir James |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Ractliff, R. F. |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Hoult, Joseph | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Butcher, John George | Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. | Hozier,Hon James Henry Cecil | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Renwick, George |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Hunt, Rowland | Ridley, S. Forde |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Thomson |
| Chamberlain,Rt.Hn,J.A (Wore. | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Chapman, Edward | Kennaway,Rt Hn. Sir John H. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W. | Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Kerr, John | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Kimber, Sir Henry | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Knowles, Sir Lees | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool |
| Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir JohnC. R. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. | Lawson,Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham | Shaw-Stewart, SirH (Renfrew) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lowe, Francis William | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Denny, Colonel | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Smith,RtHnJ Parker(Lanarks |
| Dimsdale,RtHon.Sir Joseph C. | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Stanley,Edward Jas (Somerset) |
| Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon | Maconochie, A. W. | Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord(Lancs.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Stewart,Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W | Stock, James Henry |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants.,W.) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Majendie, James A. H. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ (Manch'. | Manners, Lord Cecil | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Marks, Harry Hananel | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Tuff, Charles |
| Finlay, Sir RB.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) | Maxwell, Rt Hn SirH.E(Wigt'n | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Vincent, Col Sir C. EH(Sheffield |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Walrond,Rt. Hn.Sir WilliamH. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E.(Taunton |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | Milner, Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick G. | Welby,Sir CharlesG. E (Notts.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Milvain, Thomas | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick, S W. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Gardner, Ernest | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Wilson, A. Stanley (York.F.R.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.'Stuart | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Wilson, John (Glasgow) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | Viscount Valentia. |
| Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath) | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
§ * MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire. E.)said he desired to move the abolition of the sugar tax which was imposed in the Finance Act. Section 2, of 1901. He would once more ask the Committee to reconsider this question for three reasons, first, that the tax was a war tax imposed for war purposes on the entire community, and it was, moreover, a war tax needlessly and wrongly maintained in time of peace. Second, it was a tax on food which fell with undue weight, almost in geometrical progression, on the poorest of the poor, the poorest household contributing the largest proportion to the national expenditure as compared with the middle and higher classes. The tax involved a contribution from the agricultural labourer of thirteen times as much as a man with an income of £1,500 a year; twenty times as much as a man with £3,600 a year, and eighty times as much as a man with £20,000 a year. He had given these figures in detail last year and only reverted to these calculations now to show that the tax operated on a disproportionate scale. Thirdly, this tax fell not only on food, but on raw material. It fell on some of the growing industries of the country, which ought to be encouraged instead of discouraged. All the objections he had mentioned were aggravated and intensified by the Brussels Convention, which was almost unanimously condemned by his hon. Friends, and under which this country handed over to a foreign Junta the power to dictate where it should obtain its sugar supplies. The tax was essentially in its nature and origin a war tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, in moving the tax in 1901, said that he wished, for the purposes of the war, a tax on some article of universal consumption, by which everybody should pay something. He said—
I want a tax which shall not be open to the objections to which a protective duty on an article produced in this country would certainly be open, namely, that it would raise the price of the whole amount of that article to the consumers by a far larger sum than the I yield of the tax accruing to the Exchequer.268 No wise or prudent man would deny that to meet a great national emergency there might be conceivable justification for imposing a tax on an article of universal consumption. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to expressly justify the tax on the ground that it probably would not increase the price to the consumer because of the operation of the bounties. If that were so the enormous enhancement of prices which had resulted from the operation of the Convention, and so had enforced upon the consumers heavy outgoings far beyond the actual contribution to the revenue, logically imposed upon the Government the duty of reconsidering the tax now, if only because of the reasons alleged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol.Then the tax was a severe burden upon the poor. In the recent Blue-book, which gave 1,944 family budgets of various classes of artisans, it appeared that the duties on sugar and tea together represented an income-tax of nearly 5d. in the £ on incomes of 21s. per week, 3¼d. on incomes of 31s., and nearly 3d. on the highest incomes given—52s. When it was remembered that these people also contributed heavily through other duties it could not be denied that the sugar duty was an exceedingly severe burden upon the poor.
Then there was the question of the effect of the tax upon trade. Last year, when be moved the abolition of the tax, he was furnished with figures showing the disastrous effect upon many industries which were largely dependent on sugar as a raw material. There was widespread ruin and loss of employment. There was no doubt that the subsequent immense rise in prices had intensified their difficulties, and that their position during the past winter had been in the highest degree critical. A slight fall in prices had somewhat relieved the pressure, but the general effect remained much about the same. The industries which depended on cheap sugar as a raw material had been stunted, 269 paralysed, and thrown back. According to the Returns of last month, the diminution of exports of refined sugar and candy was very considerable. For the month ended April 30th. in the three years 1903, 1904, and 1905, the quantities in cwts. were 53,670, 49,166, and 36,074, respectively. Seeing that these industries were started and pushed forward by free access to cheap sugar, no business man could regard such figures as those with complacency. Taking the first four months in each of the years named, the fall in the exports of refined sugar and candy was from 216,223 cwts. in 1903 to 180,918 cwts. in 1904, arid 130,328 cwts. in 1905. Such facts could not be ignored. The fall had been continuous, and it carried its own story with it. The increase in the imports from abroad, though great in quantities, had been still greater in value, while the value of the exports, even at the higher prices, was stationary, if not lower, than three years ago. He submitted that the tax was unjust to these great industries, and imposed upon them an intolerable disability and disadvantage. Possibly some slight advantage had been contributed to the sugar planters of the West Indies, but the economic difficulties of the West Indies were more likely to be met by the intelligent adaptation of land and capital to new industries as had been shown by the hon. member for Buteshire a few days before, than by the bolstering up by artificial means of the sugar-cane industry. On the three grounds that the tax was inconsistent with the pledges and principles on which it was originally imposed, that it involved an unjust contribution from the poorest of the poor, and that it imposed serious disabilities and loss upon many industries in this country, he urged that there should be a reconsideration of the whole question. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not abandon the tax at once, he hoped he would intimate that it was not a tax upon which the Government would in future rely. He begged to move.
§ Clause (Abolition of sugar duty)—(Mr. Channing)— brought up, and read the first time.
270§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would deal with the hon. Member's objections to the tax seriatim. In contending that it was a war tax and that the war being over it should no longer be maintained the hon. Member had not kept fully in mind the statement repeatedly made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the difficulty which faced him as Finance Minister was not so much that of financing the war, onerous as that task was, as that of providing a sufficient revenue for the peace expenditure of the country. It was true that when the tax was first imposed his right hon. friend expressed, the hope that early relief might be given, but subsequently in making further proposals he explained that he had to provide not merely for the war but for the maintenance of the ordinary financial, equilibrium after the war had ended. Therefore it was a complete misapprehension to suppose that this tax was imposed or should be regarded solely as a war tax. It was imposed in the first instance to meet war expenditure, but it was intended after the war had concluded to be one of the country's financial resources.
It was no doubt true that the tax fell more heavily in proportion on the poor man than upon the rich. The expenditure of a poor man upon a certain article would bear a larger proportion to his income than would be the case with a rich man. That would be a just and conclusive criticism if this were the only tax on which the Exchequer relied for its revenue, but, as he had often pointed out, the equity of a tax could not be judged upon one isolated item separated from all other taxes. The balance was redressed by taxes imposed solely on the wealthier classes, such as income-tax, death duties, and the like, besides those other taxes which, for reasons known to everybody, were put on articles of luxury used by the rich that they also might contribute fairly to the revenue.
In the main the sugar duty was not a tax upon raw material, but 271 upon food, but even as a tax on raw material it did not stand alone. Cocoa beans and tobacco were raw materials subject to taxation, and he might find other instances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite returned to the argument repeated from time to time that all the objections to the tax were aggravated by the Brussels Convention. More than a slight reference to the Brussels Convention would be out of order. He had defended the policy of that Convention in reply to a deputation, and upon a fitting occasion would be ready to justify the action of the Government. It was, no doubt, perfectly true that certain industries had been encouraged and fostered by the abnormally low price of sugar in the past, but that was not a natural price at which sugar could remain in any circumstances for any length of time, or a price that could be attained except by artificial means; and it was surprising that the hon. Member, with his strict economic views, should desire that an industry should exist on an artificial basis when it could not subsist under fair terms of trade competition.
The effect of the Brussels Convention had been to withdraw an artificial stimulus from particular industries obtained at the expense of another industry equally deserving and which left the favoured industries on a footing of insecurity not beneficial to trade generally. No doubt the rise in the price of sugar last year, due largely to circumstance; wholly unconnected with the Convention, was detrimental to the trade. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that violent fluctuation of this kind, in the sugar trade were unknown before the Convention. On the contrary, the most violent fluctuations had taken place in the price of sugar from time to time before either the Sugar Convention or the tax existed, and the liability to such fluctuations was increased when the market was dependent upon a single source of supply or upon one area of production. The best defence against such sudden fluctuations was to secure that other sugar which was being driven out of the market by artificial competition should be able to compete on fair terms, and to provide that we should have a wider area of 272 production from which to draw supplies, and that we should not be dependent on the climatic conditions of a particular part of the world, or any combination which could be formed among the producers for a single and limited market.
The inconvenience caused by the rise was great, but it had been exaggerated-Failures in the confectionery and mineral water trades had not been substantially larger than in other years; and the Returns supplied by the Board of Trade seemed to show that the alteration in price since the Convention came into force had not been such as to prevent the making of very good profits. He did not dispute that the great and sudden rise due to shortage of crop had been highly injurious to trade, but prospects for the future were brighter. The price at the beginning of January was 14s. 10d., and increased by the middle of that month to 16s. But by May 18th it had fallen to 11s., and the price quoted on that date for deliveries in the following November was 9s. 11d. The average of the ten years 1892–1901 was 10s. 9d.; a higher price than that quoted for delivery in November next. He did not understand why the fact that they had a tax on sugar consumed at home should affect the export of confectionery and other manufactured articles which obtained a drawback. As a matter of fact, the figures he had before him did not bear out the suggestion made. The import figures included as confectionery a good deal not generally recognised as such, and, so far as the exports were concerned. which were much more nearly true confectionery, the decrease was very slight indeed; nor would the figures, even though less favourable, afford a conclusive reason for abandoning permanently so important a source of revenue.
The tax produced very nearly £6,000,000 of revenue last year, and he did not know where he, could look to recoup to the Treasury the sum which would be lost by the abandonment of the tax. It was quite obvious that he could not agree to part with it in the current year, and neither did he feel inclined to pledge himself to its abandonment at a future time. If it were true, as he believed, that one source of our indirect taxation 273 on which we had so largely relied in the past—namely, the tax on alcoholic drinks—was going to produce leas to the revenue in proportion than in former years, that was a reason the more for finding other sources of indirect taxation which might go some way to meet the difficulty. It was often said the tax on beer, spirits, and tobacco need be contributed to by no man unless he pleased. It was perfectly true, no doubt, that a man could get out of paying these taxes if he did not drink and refrained from smoking, but we must have some taxation which citizens could not decline to contribute to by simply changing their habits or altering their form of expenditure. The sugar tax was one to which everyone contributed, and, taken in conjunction with the rest of our system of taxation, he did not think it imposed an undue burden upon any section of the population. He could give no pledge that he would make it his business to secure a withdrawal of the tax.
§ * MR. EDWARDS (Radnor)said he desired to say a few words in support of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. He need not go into all the figures to show that this tax was a great burden on the poor, and on certain industries of this country. That fact was only too well known. He was very disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not at the present moment give any hopes of the withdrawal of this tax. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have held out some prospect, if not then, of its withdrawal or diminution in the near future. The Chancellor had said that he had as far as he could redressed the balance by putting on the shoulders of the richer classes a heavier burden of taxation, but, at the same time, as they all knew, the burden of taxation was heavier on the shoulders of the poor than upon the rich. Speaking generally, the very poor paid double the amount paid by the income-tax payer towards the general taxation of the country. He could not help regretting also that the Chancellor had not given some redress to those manufacturers who were such heavy sufferers from the burden put on the sugar industry, and when they saw that this Government had been careful to help 274 industries in other countries by allowing them to get cheap labour, it really did seem hard that they should burden industries in this country by keeping a tax upon them it was very difficult to bear. He saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallowed his great predecessor, Sir Stafford Northcote, in the matter of the Sinking Fund. He wished he had also followed him in the, matter of the sugar tax. Sir Stafford Northcote in 1864 used words about the sugar tax which seemed to him peculiarly appropriate at the present moment. Sir Stafford said—
I need scarcely remind the Committee of the enormous importance of that article (i.e., sugar) to trade and consumption. I believe in its importance in reference to the comforts of the people, it may be said to stand next to corn. That duty was raised for the purposes of war (the same in 1804 as in 1905). It was readjusted after the peace in 1857, but the I principal part has never been removed. We propose to make a considerable reduction in the sugar duties. There certainly is an objection to making this reduction. We are labouring under a quasi-scarceness owing to diminished production and increased prices.That seemed to be exactly the case before them now. But Sir Stafford Northcote, in spite of that, regarded it as his duty to make a diminution in this tax. He commended that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his next Budget, and he hoped he would give it the attention it deserved.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le Street)said he sympathised with the Chancellor because, after all, he had to find the money to carry on the business of the country, but the taxation in this case was extremely high. He agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire with regard to this matter, but the Chancellor seemed to urge that as a tax on raw material it did not injure the interests of trade. It was a very foolish policy on the part of the Government to prevent other countries sending raw material to this country cheap. These industries had grown up because of their cheapness, and if the conditions were to be altered at all, let them be altered by the people who exported the raw material into this country. The Convention had produced quite a different state of affairs abroad, as in this 275 country. It had given other countries cheap sugar, and as a result the industries in this country built up on that cheap raw material had suffered. Owing to competition abroad having been stimulated and strengthened by the action of the Government in connection with the Convention, this industry had an additional claim to some consideration in the matter of taxation. He admitted, of course, that the drawback did help the industries that exported. But the condition of competition abroad had been completely changed because foreign manufacturers, owing to the cheapening of sugar, were able to make articles in the manufacture of which we had had previously a monopoly. Great injury had been and was being done to our sugar industries by the policy of the Government. Industries did not die all at once, but by a system of slow starvation, and that this starving was going on would soon make itself very apparent if the Government persisted in its mischievous policy.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said the hon. Baronet was right when he stated that the taxation of sugar abroad had been greatly reduced, while in Great Britain this taxation fell upon competitors who could not now obtain sugar at lower prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dropped a few words with respect to which he would like a further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said he expected a less revenue from the tax this year than last year. That was a most momentous thing to say. It was a most alarming statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated that the consumption of this most important article was decreasing. This statement should arrest the attention of the free food Gentlemen on the other side of the House The consumption of sugar had already decreased 10 per cent, per head of the population in four years, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that there was to be a further decrease. That decrease had come after sixty years of steady progress. As the consumption of sugar had increased in this country, industries had increased in all directions. The raw material of sugar was produced by countries on the Continent which sent it here to be worked 276 up, and the result was that we had established important industries because we could get cheap sugar. We sent it back to these countries manufactured. These industries were growing in all directions until this Government had entered upon a policy which was stifling them, and yet the majority of hon. Members on the other side of the House sat unmoved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the average price for the ten years before 1903. Nothing more fallacious could be stated. During these ten years machinery had been improved, and more scientific methods had been adopted in the sugar trade. The tendency of the price was downwards, and as the price got lower sugar was used in a variety of ways it had never been used before. It was not right for the Government to complacently turn back the wheels of time and stop this cheapening process. The tax itself was bad enough, but when it came on the top of a high price it became a great burden to the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the prices next December, but he desired to warn him that these were only gambling prices. People who were making mineral waters were not helped by the fact that there was a cheap quotation for next December or January. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that he was familiar with certain circumstances which might prevent the lowering of price. There was the possibility of drought on the Continent which they all hoped would not take place, but contingencies of that sort showed the folly of basing calculations on prophecy. Poor people were suffering greatly from the high price of sugar brought about by the manipulations of the Government. He thought the sugar tax would also require the attention of the Government on account of the expensiveness of the system of collection. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make the expense in connection with the collection of the tax as light as possible, and the mod as simple as possible. He suggested that the tax might be reduced to a farthing per pound.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the sugar duty was imposed partly as a war 277 tax, and partly, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, for the purpose of broadening the basis of taxation. One of the reasons for voting for this and other Amendments in regard to the proposed taxation was because it was a way of protesting against the expenditure of the country. We were still labouring under a burden of no leas than £23,000,000 a year of taxation which was pat on during the war, and which, unfortunately, had been continued in time of peace. It was obvious that it would be of advantage if the sugar tax could be reduced or abolished. It was a tax on an article of universal consumption, and, what was still more important, it was a tax on certain manufactures which had been rapidly increasing. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were other taxes on raw material, and he instanced tobacco, but the tax on sugar affected a large number of small industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deny that, in consequence of the rise in the price of sugar, due in large measure to the Convention, these industries had been injured. If the Board of Trade Returns were looked at in relation to imports, it would be seen how the rise in price of sugar had affected both the consumer and the manufacturer. If the last three months were taken there was an actual diminution of imports of sugar amounting to 922,000 cwts. refined and unrefined; and while there was a diminution of consumption of nearly 1,000,000 cwts., the country had to pay over £1,500,000 more for its sugar than before. That was partly duo to the Convention to which reference had been made. To emphasise the point the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech informed the Committee that the revenue from sugar was falling off and showing no elasticity.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOh, no. What I said was—
Sugar, in spite of the shortage of supply and the high prices prevailing during the latter part of the year, realised £180,000 more than I had expected. Had it not been for the failure of the Continental beet crop it would very largely have exceeded my anticipations, and though under present circumstances it is necessary to make a cautious estimate of the yield from this source of revenue in the current 278 year, it promises to be an expanding revenue in future years, when good harvests shall have restored prices to their normal level.I think the hon. Gentleman will see that what he has stated hardly represents what I said on that occasion.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that possibly that might be so: but the figures he had just given to the Committee, taken from the Board of Trade Returns, showed that there was an actual diminution of the amount of sugar coming into this country of nearly 1,000,000 cwts., and that, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get a less revenue from the sugar tax. The assumption was that the Convention had not only seriously affected the consumer and the manufacturers but had seriously affected the revenue from the sugar tax, and therefore had seriously affected the trade of the country all round. On the other hand, countries abroad had been able to reduce their sugar duties, to encourage a larger consumption of sugar by their people, and at the same time to obtain a larger revenue from their sugar duties.
He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the manufacturers here had not suffered seriously either from the sugar duty or from the action of the Convention, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the reports of some particular firms in order to prove that point. But the figure, which the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee were not very much to the point. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, one of the objects of the Government in proposing and carrying through the Sugar Convention was to put an end to the great fluctuations in the price of sugar. But, so far as he had been able to see, the fluctuation of prices had never been so great as in the summer of last year. At any rate, the fluctuations all tended then to a lower level, while the fluctuations since the Convention came into operation tended to a higher level. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to extend the area of supply of sugar; but that was hardly the basis on which the Prime Minister had argued for the Convention. The Prime Minister stated specifically that the benefit to the West Indies was not an argument 279 in favour of the Convention. The evidence went to show that the increase of the sugar crop in the West Indies had been comparatively small, and that the Convention had been to the benefit of our greater sugar-producing rivals. Nobody had said that the increase in the price of sugar had been wholly due to the Convention. About half of it was, and the other half to the shortage of crop. He would support the Amendment of his hon. friend on all these grounds.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)said he would not have risen to take part in this debate but for the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what the right hon. Gentleman called the equities of taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the millions which he derived from this form of taxation, and said that there was no other source to which he could turn to recoup himself if this tax were abolished. There was one fact lost sight of, and that was that the imposition of this tax had not only reduced the profits of the confectionery and other allied trades, but had increased the volume of the unemployed. The Government were by artificial means restricting employment in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of abolishing the sugar bounties, but why should we not take advantage of the foolishness of other people who gave us their produce freely at a cheap rate? As to the equities of taxation to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred, and the inequality of taxation between the direct and indirect taxpayer, he would quote the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Speaking in the days when he was a Radical and when some of them on that side of the House sat at his feet as a Gamaliel, and drank in what at that time they believed was sound doctrine in politics, the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham referred to a village in Somerset in which the agricultural labourers paid 7½ per cent. of taxation on their small incomes. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, whereas he was a comparatively rich man, he only paid at the rate of 6½ per cent.
280 He, himself, was not a learned man, but he had read Adam Smith; and he held that the burdens of the nation should be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear them. If this country were in either a stationary or retrogressive period he could quite understand the poor bearing a large share of taxation, but we were in a progressive period when the wealth of the country was increasing by leaps and bounds. There were surely other means of getting money than by trenching upon the wages of the poor. The industries of this country depended for their impetus upon the spending of the many, and if that were limited in any way depression followed. It was time they turned to other sources of income. Much had been said about the war being the cause of the tax, but he did not think it would have been needed if the Government by their system of doles had not filled the rich with good things and sent the poor empty away. He, himself, did not want anything from the rich man that he was not entitled to pay; but there was a new spirit abroad which was not in any way iniquitous or unjust and which was opposed to the present system of taxation.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said he had no objection to taxation being raised in England, but he protested against his own countrymen being subjected to the pressure of this tax. It was iniquitous to put a fresh burden on a country such as Ireland. It was obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no regard for the happiness and contentment of the country. The tax was especially iniquitous in so far as it pressed heavily on the poorest of the poor. The hon. Member who had just spoken, and whose eloquence he would not attempt to rival, referred to labourers earning 17s. or 18s. a week, but what about the agricultural labourer in Ireland who only earned 10s. a week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the equities of taxation; but a man with £1,000 was far above the line of mere subsistence, whereas the agricultural labourer was below it. The Committee did not realise the terrible conditions under which Ireland laboured.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said when the sugar tax was first imposed he was one of those who opposed it. He opposed it first because it was a tax on food, and secondly because it was a tax on the raw material of certain manufactures of this country. It was no argument in favour of this tax to point out, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, that there were other taxes on food and raw material, because the whole policy of the taxation of this country for the last half century had been to lessen the taxation on food and on raw material, and the idea of all the great financiers of this country had been to gradually get rid of all those taxes. The fundamental objection to the sugar tax was that a new departure had been taken and that the whole policy of fifty years had been reversed by the imposition of a tax upon an article of food and a most important raw material for manufacture. He was one of those who ventured to prophecy that if the House was so complacent as to accept this tax the principle would very soon be extended to other articles. His prophecy was received with shouts of laughter and great, ridicule, but within two years of the imposition of the tax upon sugar they had a tax upon wheat, and then developed the great scheme of consolidating the Empire on the basis of preferential duties. He objected to this tax upon principle. It was a vicious tax. It was not only a tax which in its incidence was unjust to the poor, but it was a tax which should be reversed on principle, because if they once admitted the justice of a tax upon sugar they would have to admit in the future many other taxes on food on the same principle.
The case against the imposition of the sugar tax had been enormously increased by the effect of the Sugar Convention. It was all very well to say that the sugar tax had had no effect in the shape of injuring the power of our manufacturers to compete with the manufacturers of foreign countries because they received a rebate on the goods exported, but when the cost was enormously increased on all that portion of the trade which was consumed in this country, and when the profits were enormously depleted, to say that the power of the manufacturers to compete was not crippled owing to that 282 enormous depletion of profits was absurd. The strength of the claim of the manufacturers of sugar products had enormously increased by the rise in prices owing to the Sugar Convention. When the tax was debated on a former occasion some of them had taken the trouble to investigate the facts as to the consumption of sugar by other countries, and they found that the consumption in England and Ireland had risen to more than double that of Germany and other countries. Since the Convention the consumption of sugar in other countries had been rising rapidly and the consumption here had been falling off, and that alone was sufficient to condemn this tax.
§ * MR. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)expressed the opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give an assurance that this tax should not partake of a permanent character. The sugar tax was first of all put on as a temporary tax in order to obtain revenue for war purposes, but now they were told that it was to be a permanent tax. In his opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not considered enough the enormous injury done to the confectionery trade. He had not considered sufficiently the fact that there was no trade where an advance or a reduction of prices made such a difference in the consumption as it did in the confectionery trade. Each reduction in the price of sugar increased consumption to an enormous extent, and that must necessarily always be so, because with a low-priced sugar the manufacturers were able to produce a low-priced jam and were thus able to bring that product within reach of every consumer. Even in so small a matter as a pennyworth of sweets the children got more for their money when sugar was cheap than they did when it was dear. He was certain that if this tax was continued the revenue from it would very much decrease. Confectionery manufacturers had a real grievance. Owing to the bounties, Continental countries contracted themselves out of prosperous business. The people of this country had all the benefit of protection without any of the ills; they had cheap sugar, while Continental consumers had dear sugar. The Government had most stupidly given away that 283 advantage, and the positions were now reversed, with the result that enormous confectionery works were starting up all over the Continent to compete in their own markets and possibly in ours. As that was entirely due to the action of the Government, he submitted that British manufacturers should not be handicapped even in he home market by a heavy duty. The rebate would not put the matter right; he believed that sooner or later the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to remove, if not the whole, at any rate the greater part of the duty. Even if the duty was kept on the revenue was almost certain to decrease from it because the consumption would be less. He thought, therefore, on account both of the poor consumer and of the great hardship inflicted on the confectionery trade, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hold out some hope of a reduction in the duty.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)said it was becoming more and more an accepted fact that sugar was a necessity of nutriment, and that for a nation to be well nourished it must be a tolerably large consumer of sugar. A nation to be great must be a well-nourished nation; to be well nourished it must have reasonable supplies of sugar; to have reasonable supplies of sugar it must be able to get sugar at a reasonable price. That being so the making of the tax permanent became a serious matter, because it dealt a blow at the physical development of the nation, upon which the national prosperity depended. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by the "equities of taxation?" The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the equities were met by taking a class of the population and saying that as there were so many people in it they should pay so much. That was a very false idea of the matter. The equity of taxation would rather suggest that people on the starvation line should pay nothing at all, and that as they rose above that line then taxes should increase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind the great principle that it was not for the good of the country that people on the starvation line should be 284 taxed. For the good of the nation their lot should be made as easy as possible. He would put that point as an employer of labour. The great necessity of labour was that it should be fairly nourished; we could not maintain our manufacturing position in the world without a decently fed working class, and that could not be had if they were taxed out of proportion. The simple equities of taxation in the case of a farm labourer, who had to bring up a family on 10s. a week, were that he should pay no taxes at all; he was contributing his labour, which was the most valuable element in the national life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be very careful in fastening permanently around the neck of the nation a burden which would drag the nation down for ever.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)remarked on the fact that while Member after Member on the other side got up and urged that a concession should be made in regard to the tobacco tax, none of them had assisted the Opposition in their efforts to secure a modification of the sugar duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was a strong advocate of the feeding of poor children in schools, but he had not said a single word on this occasion on behalf of the people he desired to help. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken strongly as the friend of the people, but where was his eloquent voice that day? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon appeared to be no longer a stalwart, his speech gave the impression that he was finding his way back to the fold. Why had not a single Unionist Member supported this appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman? He had thrown over the coal tax because the influence against him was too great, and they knew that one of the first proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should the opportunity arise, would be the abolition of the coal tax. They had practically heard the end of the tax on stripped tobacco, but the right hon. Gentleman had absolutely shut the door with a bang in regard to sugar, and he had declared that he could not give any 285 pledge at all in regard to the repeal of the sugar tax. That marked a very important departure as compared with the position he took up a few years ago. He remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who stated that this was a temporary tax to raise war taxation. That had been the position right through, and yet that night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not give any pledge. Had this attitude anything to do with possible fiscal changes? It was admitted that the poor paid more proportionately than the richer classes, and that the right hon. Gentleman could not deny. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the force of argument, and that on this occasion was in favour of a reduction of this tax. He could not conceive a better argument with which to go to the constituencies of hon. Members opposite than to say that they had voted against a reduction of the sugar tax. The hon Member for Gravesend represented a working-class constituency; was he going to vote for dear sugar? He knew that colonial preference was in their mind. Upon an occasion when this question was vitally affecting their interests, it was remarkable that not a single Unionist Member had raised his voice in favour of a reduction of this tax.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was dead against the sugar tax, and nothing would induce him to vote against the Amendment. This tax had every defect which a tax could possibly have. It had now become permanent in its nature and it was one of those taxes which had been withdrawn from annual revision by the House. He objected to this tax on the ground that taxes on raw material were odious and impolitic because they interfered with trade. Taxes on food were still more odious, because food was the raw material of man, and the Prime Minister had declared that he would never be a party to imposing taxation either upon raw material or upon food. ["When?"] He could not give the date, as the right hon. Gentleman had made so many declarations. This tax had all the objections which applied to raw material and food, because it was a tax on both. Sugar was an article which the 286 ingenuity of the British, and especially the Scottish people, had worked up into the most tempting forms of marmalades and jams, which had competed most successfully and completely with similar manufactures on the Continent, because they had cheap sugar in this country. The worst of it was that things had been made far mare onerous and mischievous for those engaged in the sugar industries by the Brussels Convention, whereby they had not only put a tax upon sugar, but they had also restricted the countries from which they could obtain a supply of sugar.
He told the House the other day, and he repeated now, that the question was—What does the poor man pay for his sugar? The year before the Sugar Convention, at King's Lynn—a most admirable and industrious town, but a place whore the people were very poor—the price paid to the retail dealer was 1¼d. per pound for sugar. The price now paid for the same sugar to the same dealer was 2½d. per pound. That was the result to the poor man, and the result, though less serious, was still very serious to the more wealthy manufacturers, who formerly made jam preserves with this sugar and competed with the foreign manufacturers of these same things and beat them. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the artificial price of sugar before we reverted to that original order of nature which was embodied, he presumed, in the Brussels Convention, What was an artificial price? If a man wanted to sell his stock at half the cost he did not feel himself debarred from taking the price the seller was willing to pay. It was now, after the Convention had come into operation, that the artificial condition had arisen by prohibiting sugar from coming to these shores and preventing the enlargement of the area of supplies. The two things together made the grievance. The price of sugar had been doubled. He frankly confessed that his grievance was against the Convention much more than against the sugar duty, for this reason: We could diminish or take off the sugar duty as we pleased, but that was not so with reference to the conditions of the Convention. He would not vote in support of the sugar duty. He still believed in the necessity of maintaining the food of the people of this country untaxed.
§ Question put.
288§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 231. (Divison List No.187.)
289| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Helme, Norval Watson | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Reddy, M. |
| Asher, Alexander | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Redmond. John E. (Waterford) |
| Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Austin, Sir John | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Jocoby, James Alfred | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Johnson, John | Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Roche, John |
| Bell, Richard | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Benn, John Williams | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rose, Charles Day |
| Blake, Edward | Joyce, Michael | Runciman, Walter |
| Boland, John | Kearley, Hudson E. | Russell, T. W. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Brigg, John | Kilbride, Denis | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Kitson, Sir James | Shackleton, David James |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Lambert, George | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Lament, Norman | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Langley, Batty | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Burt, Thomas | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Slack, John Bamford |
| Caldwell, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Cameron, Robert | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Levy, Maurice | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Lough, Thomas | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lundon, W. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tennant, Harold John |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Crombie, John William | M'Crae, George | Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Kean, John | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Delany, William | M'Kenna, Reginald | Tillett, Louis John |
| Dillon, John | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Tomkinson, James |
| Doogan, P. C. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Toulmin, George |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Mooney, John J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose | Ure, Alexander |
| Dunn, Sir William | Moulton, John Fletcher | Wallace, Robert |
| Edwards, Frank | Murphy, John | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw'sBghs | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Newnes, Sir George | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whiteley, George (York, W. R) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Whitley. J. H. (Halifax) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Field, William | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset |
| Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | O'Malley, William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | O'Mara, James | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Young, Samuel |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Parrott, William | |
| Grant, Corrie | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Paulton, James Mellor | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Hammond, John | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. | Spencer. |
| Harwood, George | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Aubrey-Fletcher Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy | Balfour, Kenneth R, (Christch. |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Bailey, James (Walworth) | Banbury, Sir Frederick George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bain, Colonel James Robert | Banner, John S. (Harmood- |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. | Baird, John George Alexander | Bignold, Sir Arthur |
| Arrol, Sir William | Balcarres, Lord | Bigwood, James |
| Bill, Charles | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Bingham, Lord | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'derry | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bond, Edward | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Brassey, Albert | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) | Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Purvis, Robert |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pym, C. Guy |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W | Rankin, Sir James |
| Butcher, John George | Helder, Augustus | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Renwick, George |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Ridley, S. Forde |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore. | Hoult, Joseph | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson |
| Chapman, Edward | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hozier, Hon James HenryCecil | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Coddington, Sir William | Hunt, Rowland | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole | Kimber, Sir Henry | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawson, Hn H. L. W. (Mile End) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Lee, Arthur H (Hants.,Fareham | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Legge, Col. Hon. Hencage | Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham | Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East) |
| Denny, Colonel | Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) | Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Lowe, Franciss William | Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Doughty, Sir George | Macdona, John Cumming | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Stock, James Henry |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart | Maconochie, A. W. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Stroyan, John |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Majendie, James A. H. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Marks, Harry Hananel | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Fielden, Edward Brooklehurst | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Tuff, Charles |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) | Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield |
| Fison, Frederick William | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C. E.(Taunton |
| Forster, Henry William | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Milvain, Thomas | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Gardner, Ernest | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Garfit, William | Montagu, Hon. J. Soott (Hants.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Wilson, A Stanley (York. E, R.) |
| Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Morpeth, Viscount | Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (Yorks.) |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Morrell, George Herbert | Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Morrison, James Archibald | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Mount, William Arthur | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Myers, William Henry | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Gretton, John | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | |
| Gunter, Sir Robert | Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Hain, Edward | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darfington | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | Pemberton, John S. G. | Viscount Valentia. |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Percy, Earl | |
| Hambro, Charies Eric | Pierpoint, Robert |
§ * MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N.W.)said the point raised by the new clause which he proposed was quite separate from the general argument on the subject of the coal tax. He put forward this Amendment as a plea for equitable treatment in the imposition of the coal tax. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, realising from the previous debate on the coal duty its unpopularity in all parts of the House and in all parts of the country, and that he had not been able to defend it with seriousness, would desire to do anything he could to diminish that unpopularity, and make its incid nce a little more equitable. The Amendment he desired to move was to exempt coal nuts manufactured from dross, provided it was proved to the Commissioners of Customs that the value of such dross delivered free on board would not exceed 6s. per ton.
He ought to explain for the benefit of hon. Members what coal nuts precisely were. It was the practice in Scotland, and also to an increasing extent in the North of England, to wash the dross with water, and then grade the several sizes of coal which it contained, so as to form different qualities of what were called nuts. A large and expensive plant was necessary and a great deal of labour was employed in dealing with the dross in this manner. The contention he put forward was that coal nuts were a manufactured form of fuel, involving the use of machinery which had to be periodically renewed. Therefore coal nuts ought to be treated on the same footing as other manufactured fuel. The Finance Act of 1901 admitted a rebate on all products manufactured from coal whose price fell below the level at which coal was taxed. A rebate was given on all coal which entered into the composition of patent fuel if it were valued below 6s. a ton. He contended that that exemption should be applied to coal nuts. The only difference between coal nuts and patent fuel was that a certain amount of pitch was employed in the manufacture of patent fuel. But in both cases a quantity of coal worth less than 6s. per ton was manufactured so as to form a product worth more than that sum. The Cheapest class of nuts could not be 292 sold abroad at a price which would bear the duty. The result was that coalowners were obliged to sell cheaper abroad than in the home market. Was that reasonable? It was not good business to encourage and even compel a coalowner to sell his coal abroad cheaper than he could sell it at home. He did not suggest that the rebate in connection with patent fuel was an improper rebate; but it should be extended to other manufactured articles. There ought to be equality of treatment as between the different articles.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.