§ Then there is the case of tea and sugar. The tea duty was reduced last year by a 1d. It now stands at 5d., that is to say only a 1d. above the lowest point it reached before the time of the war, and I am satisfied, from a careful review of the existing conditions of the trade, that any further attempt at this moment to deal with the duty, in the way of reduction of another 1d., would not be of any real profit to the consumers of tea. The sugar duty is one of a very peculiar character. It bring in over £6,000,000, which is, to my mind, almost as strong an argument as you could possible use for not lightly interfering with it. Objectionable as I think it is, and have always thought it, as a tax both on the food of the poor and upon the raw material of several important industries, it is a duty with which you cannot deal piecemeal. It is a duty which, translated into terms of retail prices, works out at something like ½d. on the ordinary pound of sugar, and, as we do not deal in this country in retail trade with farthings, I say, if you were to halve the sugar duty I do not think you would do any good whatever to the great bulk of consumers in the country. You might do good to some of the trades, like the confectionery and the mineral water trades, in which sugar is a raw material, but I do not believe you would benefit the working classes or the consuming part of the community unless you get rid of the duty altogether. That is out of the question, and I dismiss it from consideration. I say, generally, having regard to the principle which I have laid down, the practical conclusion to which I have come is that I must not permanently impair 1195 my sources of revenue in view of the future, and I do not propose this year to make any change in the indirect taxation of the country.