I must begin by confessing that it is with very considerable reluctance that I oppose the new proposals of a much harassed and much worried Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the gigantic needs of the country at this moment, but I am compelled to do so because, from my knowledge and somewhat intimate association with the match trade, I am convinced, and I hope to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this is not a tax with which he should proceed. I first wish to sweep away some misapprehensions. Several papers have contained an announcement that there is something like a strike of match manufacturers against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not true. The position is this. On Wednesday morning last the match manufacturers found Custom House officers inside their buildings for the first time. I do not wish to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not taking the trade into consultation. I see some difficulties, though I do not think the difficulties are perhaps as great as he may have imagined, because I am perfectly sure there are one or two members of the match trade whom he could very well have trusted with the discussion of the question without their attempting to take any advantage of it. Be that as it may, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not find himself in a position to consult the match trade, with the result that when this tax was imposed upon them quite unex- pectedly they found themselves in conditions which were extremely embarrassing—indeed, almost insoluble. The tax was imposed, for instance, on the thousand matches. That, as we know by this time, is not the ordinary denomination in which the match maker does business. There was a suggestion, I think, in the Regulations that as matches became for the first time subject to taxes there should be some of the ordinary precautions taken with regard to all taxable commodities, namely, that bars should be placed upon the windows. In one great factory no fewer than 300 windows would have to be immediately barred. There was the difficulty of arranging prices to meet the new taxes, and there was finally the uncertainty whether the House of Commons would approve the tax or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he heard their case would persist in the tax. This is the reason, and the only reason, why the match makers have not been able to send out their matches. It has caused no inconvenience to the public up to the present, because there were certain supplies in the shops of the country which were quite enough for the short interval which must elapse between the discussion and the decision of this question.

I wish to make this further observation. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it a part of his case against the match manufacturers that they have shown any unwillingness, any more than any other class of manufacturers in the country, to give their fair proportion of the expenses of the War. As a matter of fact, no body of men have done better. In one factory alone no fewer than 400 or 500 men have been sent to the front, and, so far as moral and patriotic pressure could be applied to their employés, that has been applied. They have also subscribed largely to War funds. In fact, I think it will be common ground between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself that this body of manufacturers have done their duty by the country. If they object to the tax, then it is not because they do not regard it as their duty, as it is the duty of every other citizen in the country, to give him as much as is their fair share towards the gigantic bill he has to ask the nation to honour. I do not dwell at any length on the question how far this is a tax upon the poor. I think it is largely a tax upon the poor. My information from the match manufacturers is that five-sixths of the consumption of matches belongs to the working classes. Nor will I dwell, except by mentioning it, upon the fact that of course for the troops training in this country—it does not apply to troops abroad—it will be a serious addition to their small budget. I mention these matters not as forming the basis of the most important part of my case, but as factors which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take into consideration. I think my case is strong and unanswerable, but I do not wish to overstate it. What is the position and history of the match trade? I suppose it will be a revelation to most hon. Members to learn that 55 per cent. of the supply of matches in this country has been in the hands of foreign competitors, and that exists to-day. It is quite true that some of our competitors have been removed. Germany, Italy to a small extent, Russia, and other countries were competitors, and even since the War we have another and a rather formidable competitor in Japan, where the match industry is now assuming large proportions—so large, in fact, that the Japanese match industry has proved a victorious competitor with the American match industry in the western parts of the United States. When war reduced the number of our competitors it did not increase our share of the consumption of the country because Norway and Sweden were able to take up the trade which was abandoned by the other countries and still the proportion remains 55 per cent. of foreign matches and 45 per cent. of home matches. My opinions are too well known for me to assure the House that I do not ask, and never will be a party to asking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to equalise this competition in the form of a protective tax for our own matches. That is not my attitude. But I think I have a right to make this demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he shall not by taxation make more difficult our competition with the foreigner. I know the right hon. Gentleman endeavours to meet this objection by a difference of 2d. in the tax, but my information is that this 2d. will by no means cover the additional expenditure which the tax will impose upon our own manufacturers. That is my first point. I do not think it is right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make competition, which, to a certain extent, already has been unsuccessful, with the foreign competitor more difficult by any taxation of that industry which he can possibly avoid.

This is the initial difficulty of the match manufacturers of this country. I hope I shall not be considered as exaggerating the case when I say that at the beginning of this War the existence of the match industry in this country was seriously embarrassed. The reason is simple. Of the ingredients that go to make a match two are most important—first, chemicals; second, wood. When the War broke out this extraordinary condition of things existed. The chief chemical ingredient for the manufacture of the match was muriate of potash, and muriate of potash was practically a monopoly of Germany. There was only one great deposit of muriate of potash in the whold world, and Germany had the whole supply of muriate of potash. That supply was, of course, removed from the match trade at the beginning of the War. The second great factor in producing the match is wood. Here comes in another curiosity which may foe novel to hon. Members. Almost the only wood which the match manufacturers find useful for match making is the wood of the aspen. You have all heard of the aspen leaf. There are only two great aspen producing countries in the world. There is only one to-day, and that is Russia. The aspen wood from Russia was practically excluded at the opening of the War. A countryman of mine was able to get small parcels of aspen from Japan. Other kinds of wood much less suitable for matches than aspen have been employed. Woods have been employed in match manufacture which had never been employed before, but they have proved not so suitable as the aspen. A third difficulty with which the match manufacturers are confronted is that of freight.

I will first deal with the question of the chemical ingredient. What was done by the match manufacturers—these men who are supposed to be in open and seditious revolt against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to be helpless and whining? They set their minds at once to work to find a substitute for the muriate of potash, which hitherto had come from Germany. They found a substitute which I hope will continue to be used after the War. They found that substitute in the revival of the kelp industry. This is where the question touches me. In my boyhood the kelp industry was quite a considerable industry in Ireland, but owing to competition and new discoveries the kelp industry almost disappeared. It has been revived, however, and many people in the West of Ireland and in Scotland are earning good livings by kelp, because the necessities of the match trade and the disappearance of German muriate of potash have made kelp a substitute for muriate. I do not look with any tranquillity at the prospect of depriving these people of their work. The third difficulty, that of freight, is another result of the War. The final result of the loss of muriate of potash, the difficulty of obtaining wood, and the rise in freight was to create an enormous rise in nearly all the materials out of which the match manufacturer makes the match. I will give the House a few figures. The muriate substitute, obtained in the manner I have described, rose from £8 2s. 6d. per ton in August, 1914, to £16, then to £22, and afterwards to £4 a ton, and I believe the price is rising still. In other words, there has been a rise of 500 per cent. Wood became equally difficult to obtain, and, of course, rose in price. I will give one remarkable example of the effect of the rise in the price of wood. A manufacturer, one of the largest, if not the largest, had an order for about £10,000 worth of wood at a freight of 5d. per cubic foot for delivery in the spring of this year. The spring came and the wood was ready for delivery. The best freight obtainable was 4s. per cubic foot, with the result that the price of the wood would have risen to 5s. 2d., and at 5s. 2d. it was quite impossible to turn the wood into matches at a profit. The result was that the gentleman had not only to give up his wood, which he badly wanted, but also to pay £3,129 in order to have the contract rescinded. I think that is an astonishing proof of the difficulties which have been caused by the rise of prices.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not very much confidence, I observe, in the tax because, from the figures given to me by my friends, he has calculated for a reduction of 33 per cent. in consumption as a result of the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer begins by admitting that his tax is going to reduce the consumption of the article by 33 per cent. he makes an admission which goes against himself, but not as strong as the conditions do. What is the secret of the popularity and the large consumption of the match? I am old enough to remember the time when to use a match at all in place of a spill was regarded as an act of gross and almost criminal extravagance. That may have been more than 20 years ago. I confess that when I see a man using too many matches it gives me a pang to the very depths of my heart. I do not say that is so with the match manufacturer. The reason of the popularity and large consumption of the match is its cheapness. What is the reason why the match manufacturers are able to make profits on such small prices? The reason is that their output is so great that they can afford to do with a. small profit. That, I think, inevitably leads to this conclusion, that if you diminish the production by raising the price you bring down the production to small proportions, and it is only on big proportions that the match manufacturer is able to make a decent profit and a decent living. What are the expectations? The Chancellor of the Exchequer moderately puts the reduced output at 33 per cent.

Twenty-five.

The figure was given to me by the match manufacturers, and their calculation of the difference between output to-day and what the tax will produce is 36 per cent. But I will take the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 25 per cent. Does he contend that if it is only 25 per cent. the industry can be carried on with a fair profit? It will not be only 25 per cent. I think I can give some proof of this. Owing to this large increase in the price of raw materials, match manufacturers raised their prices some months ago. The consumption immediately went down 25 per cent., and it has not yet recovered. Add the additional tax to the additional price, and I think that I may fairly say that my expectation of the diminution of the consumption is not exaggerated. I must dwell again on this point, that the essential fundamental condition of successful match making in this country is largeness of output and largeness of sale. I may answer what I am sure will be the first objection made—is not this the only country that has not had a match tax? I believe it is. But the experience of all the other countries where a match tax has been imposed without protection against foreign matches, or without a Government monopoly, has been an experience of failure. Germany had a tax, not of 3s. 4d. but of 2s. The result was that the consumption of matches went down 40 per cent., and the match manufacturers had to take drastic measures in order to meet this diminution of consumption.

There are two or three points of administration on which I will not dwell. I acknowledge frankly the promptitude with which my right hon. Friend has met some of these objections. I am sorry that his inability to consult the manufacturers ever created these difficulties, and I am grateful to him so far for having removed them, but I next emphasise the difficulty of procuring large additional capital which the tax would have imposed, and give one or two figures on this point. On every Monday morning Bryant and May would have had to find £22,000, before they sent out a match, to pay the tax. I am more concerned with the case of small manufacturers. One of my Constituents, who employs 500 people, would have had to find £2,000 every week. This additional necessity of raising capital comes upon men whose capital resources already have been seriously diminished by the large amount of capital which they have had to raise to meet this enormous increase in the price of the raw materials. It is not on an industry thus already burdened that this further difficulty and burden ought to be imposed. I could also point to other administrative threatened abuses, but I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very difficult on these points, and I am sure that he will do his best. What I want him to do is to take off the tax altogether, or rather not to impose it. He can get it elsewhere.

Is there a single man in the House who objects to a little more being taken off the war profits? I do not believe that anybody in the country, except some extremely greedy persons, would object to a little slice more which would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer far more than this tax, and some of the match manufacturers who are doing work for the Munitions Department would participate in paying this particular share. The idea is that this tax can be carried on to the consumer. That is not so. As an illustration of my point, let me take the wax vesta. The wax vesta has already gone down considerably in consumption, but, if you double the price of a box of wax vestas from 1d. to 2d., I believe that the consumption would disappear, with the result that two factories in the East End of London, employing a large number of people, would be put out of existence. That is my case. I do not think that I have overstated it; I have endeavoured not to do so. I object to this tax as imposing a burden on an already burdened industry, an industry that has had a hard fight against foreign competition, and finally as a tax which, while seriously burdening one of our own industries, will not give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything like an adequate return.

I will not venture to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down. If I may say so, he made an exceedingly good case for the abolition of the Match Tax. I desire to join in the general appreciation of the clearness of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and to point out that one fact which emerges from this Budget, the greatness of which will be realised when its proceeds are collected and distributed, is that there has been very little complaint from the payers of what we may call the large permanent taxes, the Income Tax and the other taxes, which bring in very large sums of money. The only complaints that do arise, arise more largely from the newer taxes, especially from the Match Tax, and that upon railway fares, while the tax upon amusements is exceedingly popular. I would like to join in the protests which have already been expressed against the Match Tax and the tax upon railway fares. They produce a very small amount. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman had dared to put a tax of 3s. 6d. a gallon upon whisky he could have managed it very easily and would not have excited anything like the opposition which has already been incurred. But I want to press specially on the right hon. Gentleman the hardship which this tax upon railway fares will mean to a particular body of the community—commercial travellers. I do not want to do that to the disadvantage of other travellers who have already been mentioned, who have to take daily journeys, but the imposition of the tax upon commercial travellers is really the addition of another Income Tax. They pay all the taxes that other people pay. Their travelling is a portion of their general outlay. Travelling with them is not a matter of pleasure, but a matter of great necessity. I want the right hon. Gentleman to see if it is not possible to consider the position which these men occupy, either by some concession or by the entire abolition of this tax.

4.0 P.M.

These gentlemen, together with other citizens, themselves in large numbers and their sons, have helped to swell our forces, and it would be very unsatisfactory for them when, they return home to find that the industry in which they are engaged has been specially taxed. The commercial traveller is not a mere luxury in time of war. He is a real necessity to bring the distributer and the producer together with a view to the advantage of the consumer. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentle man if it will not be possible to entirely abolish this small imposition, which, comparatively speaking, gives a very small amount of revenue, and yet would inflict very great hardship upon a very small portion of the community. There are some 50,000 commercial travellers in the country, and you would impose upon them an average of from £25 to £50 per year additional expenditure arising from this tax—a very great charge to make upon any portion of the community. I would like also to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. Leif Jones), who expressed his disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted whisky from the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer budgets for a reduction in the revenue from whisky, but I think there is really no reason for that—

There is nothing about whisky in this Bill, to which the hon. Member must confine himself.

I am sorry I have transgressed the Rules of the House, and I suppose I would be out of order if I expressed regret that whisky is not in the Budget. However, mineral waters are to be taxed, and I am sure that teetotalers as a class will really not object to paying this tax and bearing their fair share of the burdens of the War. There is no opposition to the taxes on coffee, cocoa, sugar, and other articles, and it seems to me that the revenue to be derived from railway tickets might very easily be cast upon some other commodity. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give his special attention to the point which I have raised, namely, the heavy burden thrown upon commercial travellers in connection with a very small and paltry tax, namely, the tax on railway fares, and I trust the right hon. Gentlemn will see his way to abolish it altogether.

At Question Time we had a reference to the tax on tickets for amusements, then we had an eloquent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in regard to the Match Tax, and just now we had the attention of the right hon. Gentleman called to the Railway Tickets' Tax. I think, however, that we should look at the whole question from a broader point of view than that of these niggling new taxes, for I can well understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replying that it is war time, that these taxes are devised to raise money, and that the Government want the money. But what I wish to call attention to is whether the money is absolutely needed at all. In introducing these proposals my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the revenue he requires, but he did not tell us how much revenue he had had this year. He only told us how much he required on the 31st March, 1917. I asked what the revenue for this year was, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who seems to be a very apt pupil of the Government on every question of this kind, said, "Oh, it is printed in the Estimates." That was not a fair answer to the question. We might get rid of the House of Commons altogether if we printed everything in the Paper, but the House is here to discuss things. I ask the House to consider, in regard to these new duties mentioned in the Budget, and which meet with a great deal of opposition from various classes of the community, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said with regard to his requirements. He summed up by stating the revenue that he required. He said:

"There will be a new charge for pensions for which I make a provisional estimate of £2(1,000,000, bringing our post-war expenditure, on the assumption that the War lasts another year, up to £338,000,000."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1916, col. 1064.

When I turn to the White Paper, which was not discussed at all the other night, I find the revenue this year is £420,000,000, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without a single one of these new taxes, has got all the revenue he requires, with a surplus of £90,000,000. We all feel that something ought to be done towards paying for the War, and indeed the country has made splendid provision in this way; but in the sentence which I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that we have provided for all our Civil charges, and the interest on the Debt as ft stands, even on the most exaggerated scale, and for the Sinking Fund, and all that is required is only £338,000,000. Then the Paper shows that there is a surplus of revenue, and I do think that this is a fact to which the House of Commons ought to draw attention. The people of the country will say that we have not done our duty if we allow a feature of the situation like that to be slurred over. The House of Commons ought to make up its mind how much it can raise in any one year, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is raising that amount, then the House ought not readily to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in coming here and worrying us for money that he does not require. In the estimate of £420,000,000 given in the White Paper I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not fully estimated his income. You stopped, Sir, the hon. Member who preceded me from going into the question of whisky. Certainly it is a large subject which ought to be avoided this afternoon, but it is not out of order, I hope, to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated a reduction of revenue of £6,500,000 from whisky. I do not believe he will suffer that at all. I believe that if the prosperity of the country goes on, even if the War should continue, the whisky revenue would realise what it did last year.

The hon. Member is entering upon a general review of the finance of the country. That does not arise on this Finance Bill, which is a very limited measure dealing with certain new duties, and criticism as to other financial proposals will be more relevant on the later Finance Bill.

I shall be able to deal with the question in detail when the proper opportunity arises. I only want to state this one point, without mentioning any other alternative, that I think there is an underestimate of £20,000,000, and I think I shall be able to show that when the proper occasion comes. The real revenue for the year is greater than the expenditure, before any of these new taxes are imposed, and that is the one matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. I want to impress upon my hon. Friends, who urge this and that reason against this, that, or the other tax, that I found myself on this one argument, that there is a magnificent revenue already furnished by the liberality of this House and the country, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite has a revenue which exceeds by £150,000,000 the amount he had two years ago, and, under these circumstances, why have introduced these most worrying small duties? I think that the question which was addressed to the Government to-day about the percentage of tax upon admission to cheap entertainments, as compared with the percentage charged in respect of dearer entertainments, shows that there is proposed a ridiculous injustice to which this House cannot concede. If somebody pays 2d. for admission to one of these questionable forms of entertainment—I have never seen one of these picture entertainments— [An HON. MEMBER: "Why questionable?"] I withdraw the word "questionable," if it is objected to. I was pointing out that the tax was 1d. when the admission exceeds 2d., a tax of 50 per cent.; when it does not exceed 2d. the tax is 25 per cent.; and if you go up to 2s. 6d. the tax is only 2d., or about 7 per cent. I submit that is a bad example of how sometimes, when imposing these new burdens, by far the larger share is placed upon the poor. Take the tax on 2s. 6d.; it is only 7 per cent., but if the 2s. 6d. were taken in pennies the tax would be 50 per cent.; if the admission is 6d. the tax is 15 or 16 per cent. I think this scale will have to be regulated more fairly, and that some adjustment will have to be made in regard to the taxes on the cheaper tickets. I listened with the greatest attention to my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division. I have always known him as one of the most accomplished men in the House, and certainly I think his knowledge of the prices of wood and of other materials used in match manufacture, and all its details, is absolutely great. He made out a complete and unanswerable case, so far as I could understand him. The price of the materials for matches has already advanced greatly, and the industry is being carried on under very great difficulty. That is a fact which may well impress itself on the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for we are not at this time in a very happy position, nor is this a period to put any heavy burden, on an industry if it can be avoided. If you have plenty of money, why put on these small niggling taxes, to which experts take the greatest objection? I trust that the Government will listen to the wise words which have been uttered this afternoon in regard to the Match Tax.

As for those nauseous things mineral waters, which are mostly composed of gas and water, I think the Government might have left their own non-nutritious qualities to make them unpopular. Exactly the same argument as to disturbance of trade which has been mentioned in connection with the Match Tax applies in this case, and all for about a million or a million and a half of money. One of the ingredients of mineral waters is sugar, which we are taxing very heavily, and why, then, have any further trouble about it? I do think the Government might sympathetically consider whether this is a tax worth proceeding with. As to the tax on railway tickets, I think there might be an announcement from the Government that they did not intend to proceed with it. Nobody in the House or outside of it likes the tax. It is an extraordinary experiment sprung suddenly on the country by the Government a few days ago, and appears to be one of the most unfortunate things, even including our proceedings of last Thursday, which they have done up to the present. It would be a very difficult tax to work and unjust in its incidence. Attention has been called to the inequality of the tax on distant parts of the United Kingdom like Ireland and Scotland as compared with France and other places. If I had not made my introduction that these taxes are not wanted because we will have a hundred millions of money more than we require without any fresh taxes, it would have been said that it was rather unreasonable to object to all these taxes. The Government, owing to division in the House, may get through all these taxes. Here an hon. Member objects to the Match Tax, and opposite an hon. Gentleman to the Railway Tax, but if those hon. Members would all combine and take some suggestions from myself and promise me their support in some judicious action to restrict these taxes, I think I could tell them how to get rid of them. I am not, however, certain that they would take the course I would suggest. If any strong and firm attitude of opposition to the various taxes such as I have mentioned is taken, I will give it my hearty support.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken opened his speech by a sort of word of advice to all other speakers. He pointed out the grave? danger there was of falling into the net of the people on the Treasury Bench owing to the fact that from one side of the House there was an objection to matches, and from another to amusements, and from somewhere else to railways. Curiously enough the right hon. Gentleman objects to the lot, and the difficulty I find myself in is to know exactly whether to take his. advice and object to the lot or rather to concentrate on one particular tax. In any casa I desire to apply myself to the question of the Railway Tax. It is quite true that there are very few supporters inside the House or outside of it of this tax, but I suppose that is true of all taxes. I never yet met anyone affected by a tax who welcomed it very much. He might pretend to do so, but all the same he would make strenuous efforts to get rid of it if he could. I take it that in framing the Railway Tax the Chancellor, in addition to the question of raising revenue, specially framed it with the view, if possible, of not interfering with what is called working men's; trains, and I gather that that is the object of the exemption at 9d. But nothing is; more unfair than leaving the figure at 9d., and for this reason. A great proportion of the workers in industrial centres, for reasons of economy, health, and domestic convenience, live in the suburbs, and the result, is that this tax specially hits those people. Take a place like Croydon, which has a. population of 150,000. Large numbers of those people work in the City of London. The railway fare to Croydon is 10d., and therefore they just come within the tax, and are therefore specially and hardly hit I put it that that is not fair. The majority of people, business people, who can live nearer than 8 or 9 miles to the City in the residential quarters are the people who would be best able to bear the tax. Large bodies of clerks and people of that description live as far away, many of them, as from 20 to 30 miles from London, and this tax would mean 10 per cent. added to their fares.

It cannot be argued that at this time the Railway Tax is introduced for the purpose of preventing people travelling for pleasure. I think an examination of railway travelling to-day will show that very few people are doing so. As a matter of fact, apart from business men and the soldiers; who are travelling, you will find large numbers of men and women travelling to see their own relatives. When cheap fares have been withdrawn it is very unfair to penalise those people who go on a Saturday and Sunday to visit their relatives. I may take a different view from most Members about a Railway Tax. I am not prepared to oppose a general Railway Tax, because whilst most industries can transfer, and indeed do transfer, their burdens I am not prepared to be a party to see the railway workers of this country sweated simply in order to give cheap travelling facilities to the public. I believe that the present system of State ownership ought to apply in times of peace as well as in war. At the same time I do say that if a Railway Tax was necessary it would be far better to have a general equal tax upon everybody, and I am bound to say that so far as this tax is concerned it will work unfairly and harshly to a large section of the people. I do not agree that it is going to be a hard tax to gather. I do not think that anyone who knows anything of the circumstances can suggest for a moment that it is going to create very many difficulties in collection, because the railway system would enable it to be collected very easily and very cheaply. I hope the Chancellor will keep in mind that there is a deep-rooted and strong objection, so far as all the people I have been able to see and hear from are concerned, to the unfairness of this particular tax.

I think the same objection can be urged as to the Amusement Tax. It is an easy matter to say that people who visit places of amusement at a time like this ought to be made to contribute towards the War. I do not think anyone would object to that. But what people do object to is an unfair tax as between one section of the people and another. For instance, I asked the Chancellor to-day whether he was aware that people paying 2d. and 3d. for admission were to pay 33½ per cent. tax as compared with 7 per cent. on half-crown seats. I do not think that that can be justified or that you have the right to penalise people to that extent. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that even from the framing of the Bill it could be avoided. Would it be possible for the large queues one sees outside music halls and cinemas by clubbing together and one person buying tickets to avoid the heavier percentage of tax. If the Chancellor wants to act fairly in dealing with all sections of the people he will certainly introduce some system which will make more equitable the proportions as between the cheaper and dearer seats. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) that too much money is being levied. I strongly take the view that we ought not to burden posterity too much with the cost of this War. Looking ahead, I take a very serious view of the position of this country if we go on piling up debt and do not pay for our burdens to-day. I would much prefer to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer paying even more than is provided in this Budget, and in any case I will not associate myself with the suggestion that we should escape our own responsibility and transfer as much of the burden as possible to posterity.

It must be gratifying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to notice the somewhat shamefaced way in which any objections to these taxes are urged. That is a symptom of the way in which the country has accepted the position. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate—in, I thought, quite a halfhearted way—criticised the Government for not taking into their confidence and taking counsel with those engaged in particular trades on which they proposed to put new taxes. The particular tax referred to was the Match Tax. One has noticed the outcry which has gone up against that tax from those engaged in that industry, and the claim has been made that matches should not be taxed at all. But in addition to that grievance, if grievance it be, it is quite obvious that those people have been made a present of an additional grievance, and that is that proposals have been made in regard to the method of raising this tax which I cannot possibly think would have been, made if those people had been consulted. For instance, we are told that the tax is to be raised at so much per 1,000 matches. If you had suggested that to the trade they would have told you that they did not know anything about thousands of matches, but that they dealt with boxes of various sizes. Other indications have been given that, assuming the Government intended to raise money by such a tax, they would have done infinitely better to have taken certain people into their confidence. The objection as to forestalment may be raised. What forestalment could there be? Is it suggested that the public would immediately rush off and lay in a year's stock of matches?

The same thing is to be said with regard to another tax. I do not for a moment suggest that table waters as defined in the Bill should not be taxed, but I do say that anyone who knows anything about the ramifications of the trade in table waters will pour ridicule on the proposals as they stand in the Bill. Why could not those who advise the Treasury take into their counsel somebody connected with the trade? They are not all rogues. Some could be found who, if the Government said that they had made up their minds to raise revenue by a tax upon table waters, would have been glad to point out to the Government how it could be done with the least inconvenience, and so as to cause the fewest number of grievances, not only to the trade, but to the public. Apparently that was not done. Last year the Finance Bill dealt with a particular subject, and owing to the fact that the authorities had not taken the people affected into consultation, they had to get the House to go back upon the Resolution and postpone the matter for weeks because of the impractibility of carrying out what the Government had proposed. Table waters are denned in the Bill as follows:

"'Table waters' for the purposes of this Act includes any aerated waters and any beverages sold or kept for sale in bottles."

I do not know whether that has been fully considered. Milk is delivered at my house in bottles, and it is certainly a beverage. It is sold or kept for sale in bottles. What the Government mean to include as table waters I defy anybody to say from reading the Bill. Assuming that the definition means what are commonly called mineral waters—soda water and the like, and aerated beverages of which sugar forms a part—it would mean that if it is sold in bottle it is liable to pay duty. So that if a person goes into a confectioner's shop and asks for a bottle of lemonade he will pay the duty, but if he asks for a glass of lemonade he will not. I do not know whether that is intended or not. If the trade had been consulted they would doubtless have had some suggestions to make upon that point. Then there is a differentiation of the tax. The tax upon waters in whose ordinary process of manufacture sugar is used, is to be half the amount of the tax upon articles like soda water. I suppose the Chancellor will say that the justification for that differentiation is that the public are already paying the tax upon the sugar used in the manufacture of lemonade. Again, the trade would have told him that that is not the case, as the trade charge exactly the same for a bottle of lemonade as for a bottle of soda water. Several large makers of mineral waters have approached me on the subject. They see no reason at all for the differentiation. The Chancellor will probably say "Then let us make it 8d. in each case." I think the trade would like it to be 4d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has realised that it is no good taxing these waters supplied in bottles if machines can be sold for making mineral waters; therefore he has Clauses in the Bill dealing with the keeping of machines or mechanical contrivances for making aerated waters. In those cases he raises revenue by means of a licence. I think he will find that certain difficulties and a certain amount of hardship will arise. Take the large number of hotels and restaurants who have a soda fountain, or a machine for making aerated waters which are supplied straight from the machine into the glass. All that will happen in such cases is that the State will get five guineas a year for all the soda water consumed on those premises. But curiously enough even in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided an exemption, because the Bill provides that

"Nothing in this Section shall apply to machines or contrivances kept for the purpose of making aerated water for sale in bottles or other corked or closed receptacles, or to machines or contrivances for making aerated waters otherwise than for sale or supply."

What does that mean? If anybody wants to escape the tax upon soda water he simply buys a seltzogene and he can make all the soda water he wants free of duty. I apologise for dealing in detail with these matters, but the Government are to blame. Why can they not consult those with whose industry they are going to deal? They are not bound to accept the advice that is given; they are no worse off for getting it. What happens is that when the Bill is suddenly produced a great trade is brought together, and between now and the Committee stage all sorts of interviews will be sought with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That should have been done before the Bill was introduced. I cannot be considered to be unduly pressing this matter, seeing that I raised it in connection with another article on the last Finance Bill. I think we have ground for complaint when we find in connection with this Bill, so far as concerns two big industries that are interfered with, no attempt has been made to consult them or to meet their wishes in any way.

( indistinctly heard ): I cannot see what difficulty there could have been in finding out how you should impose the tax on matches, although it may not have been easy to avoid giving some sort of pretext for objecting to a reasonable tax on the ground that it was not imposed in a way which adjusted itself nicely to the manufacturers' methods of business. All my sympathy is with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the enforcement of the tax, although it is with the industry in their complaint that it is imposed in a manner which does not square with their methods. But I should think it is easy to adjust that matter, and I hope the tax will be persevered with with such adjustment as will make it easy of administration. With regard to the Railway Tax, I want to say a word or two on the question of whether in its present form it does not take the character of a tax on industry. If it is a tax on industry it does not strike where it is best to strike in these difficult times. I will illustrate the objection that I want to raise by putting a particular case. A great deal has been, and more will be, heard of the case as it affects working men, and that aspect of the matter does not need to be further developed. The House has just heard a very clear statement from the hon. Member for Derby on that point. But take the case of the commercial traveller. I have received a letter— which I have sent on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which affords a very terrifying commentary upon this tax. A commercial traveller in my own Constituency, where there are a large number of commercial travellers because of its being a railway centre, wrote to me that he was making an income of £200 a year —a great deal less than his ordinary income—that he travelled at his own expense to, among other places, Ireland, and that this Bill as it stood would so penalise him as to a great extent to destroy his income. It will be seen that there are people in industrial and commercial centres who are travelling at their own cost and earning their livelihood in that way, as well as other people who travel at the cost of their employers. With regard to these, as well as with regard to the working classes more strictly so called, and a large number of people who travel for business and not for pleasure, there seems to be a promise of possible grievance in the imposition of this tax. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it will need a great deal of care and adjustment if the tax is to be reconciled to the views of the country, as to the mode in which we ought to deal with principles of taxation. I will not say anything in detail about the rest of the taxes, but I wanted to bring this particular matter to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer while there is time to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington spoke of there being a very great deal too much money budgeted for in the recent Budget. I do not think the House is going to express any very great hostility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that ground. The country has responded to the challenges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except in some minute points of detail, in a spirit that the Chancellor has recognised in the readiness of sacrifice when the demand for sacrifice is made. On the other hand, when we come to consider some of the old taxes and the intensifying of them in the general Budget, it may be said that the right hon. Gentleman has part of the money in hand and can afford to give relief not only in some little incidence here, but in some little incidence elsewhere.

I do not want to detain the House, except to deal with one point, and that is the question of the Cider Duty. It is a question upon which I have endeavoured during the week-end to gather the views of my Constituents. While they are animated by a patriotic desire to pay the taxes, if possible, and while they do not desire merely to protest against the tax, yet there are certain points about it which I think ought to be brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These points I cannot but think should be given due attention to, for it may be remembered that the present Minister of Munitions brought in a Cider Tax and then dropped it. The person with whom I have the most sympathy in this matter is the small dealer—that is to say, the dealer in cheap cider. I do not know whether the House realises the low price at which cider is often bought and sold. The farmer very often does not get more than 4d. or 5d. per gallon for his cider, and a duty of 4d. per gallon will thus be seen to be nearly 100 per cent. That will knock out a great deal of the cheap trade, and will affect quite a large class of dealers. One farmer sells apples to another to make cider, and the cider thus made is sold into Wales or other counties where they want this cheap cider. A 4d. tax, added to the 7d. per gallon at which this cider is sold, will knock out the cheap trade altogether. The farmers themselves buy the cider to give to their men at harvest and other times. They may be able to pay 7d. a gallon, but they cannot possibly afford to pay lid. In a letter I have from one of these small dealers these facts are pointed out. He says: part return for this contribution they have had a number of cider fruit trees given to them which they have distributed. A great deal of this expense will be wasted, and many of the efforts of the small holders who have to protect these trees to help to pay their rent will be wasted. One of the largest makers of cider in Herefordshire writes to me that in his experience it is doubtful whether more than 3,000,000 gallons will be sold subject to the tax. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary opposite, whether it really is worth while to disorganise the trade for such a small return as that? The revenue from the tax will perhaps amount to £50,000, and many will undoubtedly be absolutely ruined.

I seem to remember one of the old arguments about the tinplate trade which was so hardly hit by the Mackinley tariff. People said afterwards, "Look how it has recovered; it is far more profitable than before." I believe it is. But before that happened a good many people were ruined. Is it worth while in this case to get a revenue at that cost and in connection with a rather struggling business carried on free from taxation? The large dealers will gain by the tax and the small dealers will be knocked out. One grievance is that owing to the method of taxation, and a new label having to be put on each bottle, and the price of it being a full ¼d. for every fraction of a ¼d. charged on the amount, it will work out at something like this: The usual type of bottle contains one-twelfth, one-thirteenth, or one-fourteenth of a gallon, so that they will require a ½d. stamp on each bottle, making the duty 6d., 6½d., or 7d. a gallon, respectively, according to the size of the bottle. That is 50 per cent. more than the duty on light beers. I do not think that can be the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put a new duty on an hitherto untaxed commodity, and charge it at a higher rate than its chief competitor. Is it worth while at the expense of home-made cider, which is at present so largely consumed, to do what is proposed? Everybody regrets that home-brewed beer has been knocked out of existence, and I think that it will be regretted if cider, which is at present made sound and cheaply and out of pure fruit, ceases to be made in the farmhouses, and is made only in factories. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to these various considerations before we get into Committee. I hope that he will see the desirability, perhaps, of dropping the tax. If he does not drop it, I hope he will consider whether it is not excessive to start at 4d.; and also whether some of the points I have mentioned cannot be dealt with so as to relieve the burden.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has really anticipated the greater part of the remarks I intended to make. He speaks with more authority than I can do on this particular subject, for he represents a cider-producing district, whereas my interest in the matter comes from the interest which I have always taken in the substitution of wholesome diet, and in my desire for the health and habits of the people. I have thought it desirable to inform myself about the conditions under which the cider, especially those ciders of a lighter kind, are produced. I really do not wish, therefore, to say more to the House except that I agree, so far as my information goes, with everything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. I hope he will take care, having been in contact with the producers of this wholesome beverage, that they have their opportunities of proper conferences with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to elucidate the points he has put. There is one other point on which I wish to put a little emphasis. It follows from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the interest of the small producers—I think he spoke of the small dealers, but I think he meant the small manufacturers as well—

Yes.

5.0 P.M.

Well, there is, so far as my information goes, this difficulty in particular in their case: These ciders are mostly manufactured in the autumn, or in October. They are sold in the summer, or in the spring for the summer. By a custom of the trade—which is not for us to undo, for they, of course, in the long run will adjust themselves to the circumstances—the deliveries are made early in the year, and the payments do not come in till quite late in the year. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary, to note that point, and to do in this case what has been done in analogous cases—make provision that the duty may be paid by instalments. There are other points to note. There is the small farmer who produces, and possibly sells, part of his produce. Looking carefully at the Act, I think that it is quite within the competence of the Chancellor, or the Commissioners, to deal with all these points by the Regulations proposed, but, in this matter of payment of duty, it would practically put the smaller producers out of the running in the competition with larger capitalists if they had to pay the whole of the duty early in the year, when they could not expect any return till quite late in the summer or autumn. There is another point to which I wish to ask the attention of the Treasury authorities, and that is in connection with the duty upon entertainments. I, like everybody else, approve of the duty in principle. But I have looked at it very carefully in the Bill, and it seems to me it will require a little care to avoid doing mischief by hitting, through the particular words used, something which, I think, cannot be intended to be at all affected by taxation of this sort. There are many places, such as tea gardens, where occasionally there is the attraction of a little music or something of that kind provided. I have one particularly in my mind which was started with very great success as a counter-attraction to the public-house, and where only now and again they have the attraction of a band of music. It seems to me that under the wording of Clause 1, Sub-section (5), it might be held that there was a performance, and it would, I think, be a very great pity if you were to shut down these places, which are provided by people who receive nothing but a limited income of 4 or 5 per cent. on the capital they provide, and where there may perhaps be a charge of 2d., or something of that sort. Occasionally there is something in the nature of a performance in the sense that a little amusement is provided, and I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take note that they do not by their Entertainment Tax unnecessarily hit these places, which cannot at all be put on a level with a picture palace or a cinema. It is quite an innocent thing— perhaps there is a coquet lawn, or something of that sort—and it certainly does not come under the same footing as an entertainment which ought to be subject to the tax. All I ask is that the authorities should bear this matter in mind, and, if possible, introduce certain modifications to meet this particular case, so that they do not hit these harmless tea gardens, which are doing a great deal of good; and, secondly, that they should not interfere with the smaller producers of cider by exacting from them a heavy tax, which must put them at a ruinous disadvantage compared with the makers of other liquors.

I agree with some previous speakers that in criticising this Bill under the peculiar circumstances in which it has been brought forward we ought to do so only in a very broad-minded spirit, and I should not have arisen except to point out a fundamental principle in the Bill with which I totally disagree. Reference has been made to-day by a good many members to the Railway Ticket Tax. I assume it has been imposed, not only for the purpose of raising revenue, but also to endeavour to curtail the amount of travelling by the public on our railways, which I am prepared to agree is a very necessary object at the present time. I believe, in so far as it will affect that object, it is serving a national advantage. There is, however, a peculiar and very difficult position as regards the commercial travellers of this country. One has to remember that of the 60,000 odd travellers in this country about one-half, or a little over, are commercial travellers, which means that some 30,000 commercial travellers will have to pay a heavy increase in taxation. If the Bill is retained in its present form it will be exactly the same as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed a special Income Tax upon that particular class. That is a principle to which no Member of this House would listen for one moment. I do hope, therefore, that in the interests of equity and justice the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give special consideration to the matter. There are a number of commercial travellers whose increased expenses in travelling, I assume, will be paid by the firms for whom they travel. That in itself might not be a sufficiently strong case to ask for special consideration, but along with another tax, to which I am going to refer, it touches this fundamental principle with which I am dissatisfied at the present time. This tax on railway tickets is a considerable additional tax upon industry of this country at a time when we know from the appeals of the Government that we want industry to maintain its position, and at a time when industry is paying enormously in taxation, and gladly paying without a murmur, towards the cost of the War. This tax on railway tickets, in so far as it affects the whole body, of commercial travellers, is a direct tax upon the productive powers of this Country, and for that reason I would like to see some modification made by the Government.

Abolish it altogether.

No, I do not want to see that. We have got to raise the money, and at a time when you not only want to raise money, but when there is the greatest advantage in curtailing the travelling by the public on the railways, I think it is a very legitimate tax, but why are not journeys on trams and motor 'buses taxed? What a splendid opportunity the Government have for imposing these taxes if it is only revenue they want! We have got the old dispute about public companies which run motor 'buses paying nothing towards the maintenance of our roads compared with motor 'buses run by county councils which have to pay heavy contributions towards the upkeep of the roads. Why should not people who travel on trams and motor 'buses be taxed as well as people who travel on railways? I hope the question with reference to commercial travellers—that is my special appeal to-day—will be carefully considered. The same principle to which I have just referred applies with the greatest force upon British-made matches. I have never had any objection to taxes on anything coming into this country, and at the present time I have no objection to any tax imposed upon any section of people in this country if it is only done with equity. But why single out matches? Matches are very wastefully used by everybody—rich and poor—in this country, but they are not the only thing in which there is enormous waste and which from that point of view might very reasonably be taxed. How is the tax going to help the match trade of this country to expand when the War has finished and when we have to pay the debt? How is it going to help the overseas trade of the British match maker? It is a burden which must inevitably kill the oversea trade of the British match maker, and to that extent it is not only a tax upon British industry, but it is playing the game of the enemy.

We have every interest in a Bill of this nature when taxes have to be imposed in imposing them in a direction whereby the Government can prepare and pave the way so that everyone in this country can take the utmost advantage of the world's markets to recover our economic position. The Government from time to time very properly urged the importance of laying the foundation for the greatest possible trade after the War, but here in this Bill I maintain that they are missing a very great opportunity at the proper time of initiating some principle which in their judgment would bring about the desired result when the War is over. Instead of doing that, they are leaving the present chaotic position apparently to take care of itself. In order to show how they might in this Bill have served a very great national purpose, let me take, by way of illustration, a matter of the greatest importance to the Government to-day, the question of the chemical trade. The Government to-day are willing to pay anything—they do not argue about money—to people who will produce many of the chemicals which are essential to the War in some way or another, and which are mainly required by the War Office. People to my own knowledge are producing these chemicals at enormous cost to the Treasury, for the simple reason that in taking up these industries which were previously held mainly by Germany they have got to recoup themselves for every penny they spend. The Government have got to pay these enormous prices, because these people have no reason to suppose when their present contracts are finished that their plant is worth anything for future trade. I know of large sums of money which the Government have spent for chemicals which could have been cut down to one-quarter if only the people producing chemicals had known what their position was going to be. Whilst this Bill in many ways takes a bold and courageous step in imposing new duties and looking for new sources of revenue, I regret that the Government are neglecting a golden. opportunity not only for obtaining a greater amount of revenue in this present year, but also for paving the way to achieve a far greater purpose which must be initiated at an early date if we are to reap the full benefit at the end of this War and if we are to regain our economic position.

I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman a plea for one special section of the community, I mean the people who live at our East Coast watering places who are suffering very much not only from bombardments, but also from Zeppelin raids. Only those acquainted with those places have any conception of the distress there is there now and will be during the summer. A great many people live there who are poor and earn their livelihood by letting apartments and keeping boarding-houses, and they have suffered very severely indeed. There are two points I wish to bring forward. In the first place, I wish to point out that if you increase railway fares to those places you tend to diminish the number of people who go there. Already the railway companies have abolished the cheaper fares to those watering places, and this tax on railway tickets is a severe blow, because it will tend to diminish the number of people who travel to those seaside places. Therefore, if you put a tax on all railway fares it is bound to strike a further blow at the watering places on the East Coast.

My second point is that I do not know that it is clear—and it is not clear to me from reading the Bill—to what extent this tax upon amusements will apply. One thing I suggest for consideration. Many of these watering places have their grounds and gardens where bands of music play and where an entrance fee is charged and annual subscriptions are also charged for entrance to those places. Does that come under the definition of amusements or of an entertainment? If so, it will be very hard upon a number of those places. It is one thing to charge a tax upon an entertainment in a theatre or a hall in a place, but these are charges made for admission to grounds where there are bands of music, and they are not entertainments quite in the same sense as a cinema or a theatre. I am not quite clear from the wording of the Act that they would be exempt. There are some watering places where they very much depend upon the attraction of these grounds, and if you add to the cost of that attraction by this tax I am afraid it will prove a severe blow to those places for whom no special plea would be made under ordinary circumstances, but under existing conditions I suggest these two points for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

It is not often that I intervene in Debate, but I do so on this occasion because I am afraid that my silence might be misinterpreted. Up to the present time I have always considered it to be my good fortune to be a director of the firm of Bryant and May, and this is the first time I have seen any reason to doubt that good fortune. I only wish to make one point, because the case for the match manufacturer has been very exhaustively and admirably put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). To the hon. Member's statement I have little to add. In some quarters we have been attacked because we are alleged to have held up stocks, and practically we have been accused of unpatriotic action. I wish to make this point quite clear. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the fact that we had to withhold our stocks after the Budget, and after the tax became known, was not because we were in any sense unpatriotic, but because of the absolute impossibility of dealing suddenly with the new tax that had been thrust upon us without any warning at all. I feel sure the House will agree that it is a comparatively simple thing, when there is already a tax upon an industry, to add to that or to reduce it, but at a time like this, and especially in the case of an industry like the match trade, when we are working tinder enormous difficulties and with very depleted stocks—the number of our staff who have enlisted compares favourably with any other industrial firm in this country—at a time like that when naturally financial arrangements with regard to capital are not very easy to make, suddenly to introduce a tax without any warning is to put a strain upon the industry which we really have found it impossible to meet.

I think I am right in stating that in one of our firm's branches alone we have something like one hundred different brands, most of them put up in different sizes and a different number in the boxes. We also have 20,000 retail customers with whom we have to reckon. It is practically impossible to deal with all these matters at a moment's notice under a tax which adds to the cost of the matches by 200 per cent. I think one small instance will be enough. At one of our factories alone, in Liverpool, the Excise officer arrived, and at once he wanted us to turn the factory into what was practically a bonded warehouse, and he wished us immediately to put iron bars, carefully cemented in, into no less than 300 windows. Besides this we were called upon to put locks on twenty-seven doors in this particular factory which had hitherto been refused locks because of the danger of fire, and the mere fact that locks were put on would have entirely invalidated all our insurance premiums. That is a state of things which cannot be dealt with hurriedly. Those are comparatively small matters fairly easy of adjustment, but I think those who arranged this tax might, without any fear of warning the trade, have ascertained that matches are generally sold by the gross and not by hundreds. The mere fact that it is 3s. 4d. per 10,000 is in itself a very great difficulty in adapting itself to the real necessities of the trade. I do not intend to touch upon the other points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, but I may just mention that wherever matches are taxed, and they are taxed in a great many countries, they are countries protected by the fact that the trade is a monopoly, and they have a very high protective tariff. I may mention casually the report of a German firm which simply says that owing to a tax of 2s., or a sum corresponding to that amount per 1,000 matches, the German manufacturers have had to limit their output to 40 per cent. of their normal output in order not to kill the whole of their profits by an excess of accumulated stocks. If a tax of 2s. in Germany has an effect of that kind, what effect will a tax of 4s. have in this country?

There is one other point which I think I ought to mention. I am not speaking only for the manufacturers, but also from the point of view of the difficulties of those customers who place small orders. Under ordinary conditions a small order will amount to twenty cases of matches, representing 640 gross of boxes of matches, and in order to finance that transaction the customer had to find £48. At the present time, without any tax on the same orders, he has to find £85, but when this tax is put on he will have to find £176. I am not over-stating the case when I say that to introduce a measure of this kind without a moment's warning is a very serious dislocation of the trade, and surely this is not the moment when we wish to dislocate any trade that is doing well, more especially when it is a necessary trade, because I think everybody will agree that we should be very badly off if the match trade were in any way to be seriously hampered. I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will seriously consider this question, and remember that this tax, above all others, is really a tax on industry, and it is one which I hope the House will very seriously consider before it is adopted.

I will not touch upon the duty on matches, because we have had a very able speech from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool on that subject earlier in the afternoon. Of course, we cannot place new duties upon any industry without dislocating trade to a certain extent. I do not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, requiring money as he does, could have found a better way than that which he has adopted in this Bill. I have no great objection to any of the duties in this Bill except one, and that is the tax on railway tickets, because I am quite sure that that is a tax on industry. We have already heard of one particular section of the community who will suffer from this tax, namely, the commercial traveller. Cheap fares on railways running to seaside places have already been done away with, and I know with regard to some of those watering places on the East Coast they have suffered very badly during the last year. If, in addition to all that, there is this extra tax placed on railway tickets, they will suffer even worse than last year, and for these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman not only to relieve commercial travellers of this burden, but not to impose this tax on railway tickets at all.

I am quite sure that this £2,000,000 which he expects to get from the Railway Ticket Tax might be placed upon something else which would obtain for him this sum of money without causing so much suffering. With regard to the tax on amusements, to place a ½d. upon a 1d. ticket for an entertainment and to place only 1s. extra on 12s. 6d. appears to me to be proceeding in a wrong way. If anything, I think the higher priced tickets should bear a larger percentage of tax than the smaller priced tickets. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) showed that the percentage on the lower priced tickets amounted to 50 per cent., whereas in the case of the higher priced tickets the tax only amounted to 7 or 8 per cent. I think it is quite possible to equalise that, and arrange that the entertainments of the poorer people should not have to pay so very much greater a percentage than the entertainments of the well-to-do. But with regard to that, I leave it entirely in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The one point I wish to press upon him is with regard to the Railway Tax, and I do hope and trust he will find some way clear of getting the money he requires, or possibly these other duties will be sufficient for him, and that he will not impose a tax on railway tickets.

As I understand that Budgets are introduced for the purpose of raising revenue, and not for the purpose of killing industries, I desire to draw the attention of the House to how unjustly the present proposals will operate against Ireland. In Ireland the match-making industry is competing not only against England, but against the world. Sweden and Norway dump into Ireland almost three times the amount of matches that our Irish, match factories manufacture. If these proposals are persisted in, I believe that our last remaining match factory in Dublin will have to close down, and thus cause unemployment to anything from 600 to 1,000 young girls. It has been admitted by almost every Member in the House that the match manufacturers make their profits, out of the matches that are wasted, and not out of the matches that are used. As far as I can see, the proposals will be the means of preventing the same output of matches, but they will still be enough to meet the requirements of the people, and it will be one of the most disappointing, sources of income to the revenue which has ever been suggested in this House. Then I would refer to the Mineral Water Tax. The increase in the price of sugar since the Government took control of it has been, such as to prevent the sale of almost half the usual supply of minerals that were required previous to the War, with the result that the increased price in the cost of sugar has already killed the mineral water industry in Ireland. I think that if there is to be equality of sacrifice Ireland should have separate treatment. There should be a special Budget introduced which could tax Ireland according to her taxable capacity, and if you tax whatever is doing well in Ireland you will find very little to tax. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) stated that by the taxation of war profits you can have a splendid source of income. My attention was drawn to what I consider an attempt to exploit the War for the purpose of making profit. A celebrated meat company—a meat combine in the United Kingdom—that never paid a dividend before has made, during a war year, £432,000 profit, as compared with £30,000 profit, previous to the War. I say that is exploiting the War for the purpose of making a profit, and those are the people who should be taxed, and not the small struggling industries that give a large amount of employment such as the match and mineral water industries.

I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his desire to have equality of sacrifice, that before he introduces the Budget which is threatened for July next, he will call for an inquiry as regards the position of Ireland. It may not be known to newer Members of this House that in 1896 there was an inquiry asked for, and there was a Commission appointed to go over to Ireland, and they came back and made a report that Ireland was being over-taxed to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. Since then you have added an additional £15,000,000 a year to a struggling country. You do not give us in Ireland one-hundreth part of the War expenditure, but you ask us to pay more than our equal share towards the War. In Ireland we have no objection to paying our fair share of the War expenses. We are prepared to do so, but I ask, is it fair to have all the munition work and to have the labourers of Great Britain earning from £3 to £6 per week, whilst at the present moment we have in the city of Dublin labourers earning £l a week? Is it equality of sacrifice to ask a man who has £6 a week only to pay the same price for his pound of sugar as a workman in Dublin who only has £l a week?

We are not now discussing the subject of sugar. The hon. Member must reserve any general remarks until we reach the Finance Bill. This Bill deals only with certain new taxes, and he must point his observations to those.

I am sorry. I would again ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before his next Budget comes along, he will appoint a Commission to consider what can be taxed in Ireland, and not tax a few industries which will bring in no revenue. I think we are entitled in Ireland to the same treatment as New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, and our people will pay willingly if you tax the people who are able to bear it, but not the working classes.

I am not going to follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) and oppose all the taxes and all the new duties. I, like everyone else, or nearly everyone, realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is out to get money, and he must have it. I do not believe he is trying to get too much. I believe it is our duty at the present moment to bear our fair share of the cost of the War, otherwise we shall be putting a burden on the future which will interfere with the industries of the country, and we shall be up against very great difficulties after the War. But while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to raise the money, in seeking about he is not always, perhaps, as successful as he may think he is in the particular duties or taxes which he tries to bring into existence. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman shares the view that you want to put the least amount of infliction on the community at large in the new taxes. I think the most unfortunate tax that he has tried is the railway duty. It has been put from several points of view already. It has been strongly put from the position of the coast towns, and the infliction that will be brought upon them when the holiday season commences. We have also had it from the point of view of the commercial travellers—a large section of the community—and I go further even than the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper), who thought there was some differentiation. I say it all falls on the commercial traveller, whether he gets his daily allowance, as is generally the rule, to cover his expenses, when any extra charge put upon his railway travelling must fall upon him, or whether he is paid entirely by commission, as in some cases, when all his expenses have to come out of his commission, and the extra charge will fall upon him in the same way.

There is another very grave problem. I represent a constituency—I am only taking it as a concrete case—that illustrates the whole surroundings of the large cities throughout this country. Inside London, or nearly inside London, those who live at the extreme portions will have to pay a very small amount of tax, and the industrial classes will largely get out of the tax; but if the right hon. Gentleman will follow me, I will put some cases, just as I have taken them out of the railway guide, and he will find that he is dealing with a problem of the gravest possible character with regard to large sections of the community. So far as I can find, in not one of the places in my Constituency will the working classes and others escape the tax, except those who get the workmen's tickets. It may be said that my Constituency is exceptional. It is not. The same applies right round London in the outer circle. If you look at the charges for tickets, you will find they come in whether it is on the single ticket or double ticket, and I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that these places are not little suburban places with a scanty population. They are areas filling up rapidly, several of them, with tens of thousands of population—25,000, 27,000, and so on—and all the places adjacent are of the same character.

Take the case of Dartford itself. The third-class ordinary ticket is 1s. 5½d., and the double ticket is virtually as much again. You see at once you get a heavy tax on the men there. The second class is 1s. l0d. single and 3s. 4d. return; the first class, 2s. 8d. single, and 4s. 5d. return. I am not going to weary the House by giving a lot of figures, but I want to show how they come within the scope of the proposal. You have at the present moment a large population working in the district, and a still larger population—I admit temporarily —brought into the district; yet, taking the normal times, a very large portion of the population goes into London daily in order to follow its ordinary avocations, and you are penalising the whole of those people to a large extent. Take a place like Sidcup, as to which I was asked once by a Noble Member of the other House what the people live on, and I said that the whole population live on the South Eastern railway to the City. The whole population, virtually, you may say, comes up daily. Whether workmen or the struggling professional or business classes, who will feel it very severely, all will have to take these tickets. At Orpington you will also find a large population growing.

Here is the case of a great social problem, which we have to deal with at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman knows—indeed, everyone who has taken an interest in the housing question knows—there is an enormous shortage of houses in and around our big cities, and the people who have gone to live in the suburbs have helped in the solution of that problem. Are you going to penalise them heavily by this tax, or are you going to drive them back into the crowded cities? One of those two things will occur. We know thoroughly well that when people go out to these places the question of rent is carefully considered, and, although the rent may be a little lower than inside London, the cost of travelling is added to the rent and the whole thing is worked out as closely as possible. If you put this penalty on, many of these people must be driven back into the towns. I know I may be told that in nearly all cases these people have season tickets. Some do and some do not, but even then it has to be remembered that the family, apart from its head, has to come to town now and then, and the members have to pay the regular fares, whatever they are. It is not a criminal thing to come to town to visit a relative; it is not merely a question of a joy ride or of travelling for pleasure; it is sometimes an absolute necessity to make these visits.

I may put my case even more strongly, as in nearly all these families there are younger members, girls and lads, above the age to take advantage of half-tickets, who have to travel up and down to town learning their particular occupations and receiving scarcely any wage. Their tickets are to be charged in the same manner as that of the head of the family, and you are consequently putting a burden on these people of a most serious character. I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will look upon this question as a portion of a great social problem—the housing problem —with which we have long been trying to grapple, but which we have had to put on one side for the moment because of the great War in which we are engaged. Had it not been for the War, I venture to think this House would have been busy to-day discussing various measures in connection with the housing question.

I could give a further instance of hardship among the smaller professional classes whose children do not come within the benefit of the exemption to the new Income Tax. They go up to London for schooling purposes every day, and one only has to look along the Thames Embankment, to see the number going to the City of London School and other schools, to realise what a serious charge is here proposed. It will fall upon parents who are not overburdened with loose cash, whose Income Tax has already been increased, and who constitute a class of the community deserving of some consideration at a time when at great expense they are trying to do their best to provide exceptional education for their children. I hope this question will receive the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The more I look at the tax, the more it seems to me to be one which ought to be abandoned. It is a mistake at the present moment to talk about people going for a holiday. Week-end tickets and excursion tickets have been abolished. I have done a great deal of travelling recently, especially at the end of last year, in connection with munition meetings. I took considerable trouble to find out from people travelling with what object they were journeying, and I found that they were nearly all engaged in some serious occupation, and not travelling for pleasure as they used to do in times gone by. I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Entertainments Duty. If it is going to foe insisted upon, it ought certainly to be graded. We must do justice in this matter to the poorer portion of the community, and therefore it is necessary the tax should be graded and that those who can afford to go into the higher-priced seats should be subjected to an impost proportionate to that which is charged at the lower end of the scale.

The speeches this afternoon, of necessity I think, have a strong electioneering flavour about them. Hon. Members who represent seaside resorts object to the Railway Tax. The hon. Member who has just spoken has voiced the opinions of constituents who have to travel to London by rail every day, and who look with sad eyes upon this proposed impost. I have in my own Constituency four Members of Parliament, one of whom, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has put my case with great clearness. He told the House of the heavy handicap which will be placed upon a man who has to travel daily a short distance to town if he is called upon to pay this extra tax. I should like to ask the Government what is the object of this tax? Is it to raise revenue or is it to stop railway travelling? As far as I could understand the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir E. Cooper), the object is to stop railway travelling. Then would it not be desirable to simply impose a tax on tickets costing 5s. or more? You cannot stop men travelling short distances to town to their daily occupation. Another point I would like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it seems to me very unfair to tax a railway company for these short journeys and to leave the trams and 'buses untaxed, because the result will be to give the latter companies a great advantage over the railways, which already find the competition very great and constantly growing.

I wish to say a few words on behalf of a class not represented in the House at the present moment, but including several, million members of His Majesty's Forces in the Army and Navy—and more especially the Army. This must, I think, be an. oversight. Surely it is not proposed to charge this additional tax upon soldiers and sailors who get a week-end leave or are travelling on furlough? You cannot mean to do that, and it must therefore bean oversight that it is not provided against in this Bill. Take the case of an unfortunate soldier stationed at a garrison town some distance from his home. He gets a week-end in order to pay a visit to his home. He is allowed to travel at single fare, but still he may have to pay something over 6s. for his ticket. That man's pay, after his allotment has been deducted, amounts to but 3s. 6d. a week, and it is a very hard thing to find the money to pay his travelling expenses under any circumstances. Surely the Government do not intend that in. addition he should pay a tax of 6d. or 7d. on his ticket? I am taking the case of a man who is doing a comparatively short journey. But take the case of a man who has to go from Salisbury to Liverpool. In such a case I venture to think the tax becomes practically prohibitive. The same thing applies equally to the Army and to the Navy. It also applies to the officers. They have to travel first class, and the charge upon their railway ticket amounts to over a shilling very often, in such a case as I have cited, and that for a young officer who has to live entirely upon his pay and has nothing to fall back upon is a very serious item. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that so far as soldiers and sailors are concerned he should relieve them from this duty. The loss to revenue would be very small indeed, while it would be a great been to men who are very lowly paid and who can ill afford to meet this extra charge.

I have had something to do with the introduction of nearly every Budget since 1906, and however small or humble my share may have been I think I may assert with some confidence that one fact which has emerged has been that to try to broaden the basis of taxation is not the quickest road to happiness. Every new tax I have seen introduced into Parliament has for some reason or other always been violently assailed. Every innocent little tax incorporated in this Bill has had a severe "gruelling" from one source or another, but I am still hopeful that we shall bring our cargo into port without any substantial damage. We have had a large number of short, business-like speeches, in which some hon. Member or another had something to say against one or two or three of the taxes and then has quickly disappeared. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) began by saying that he was not going to attack the new taxes, but, as far as I understood him, he attacked every one of them, and then by some obscure arithmetic which I failed to follow he came to the conclusion that we did not want any more revenue at all, as the revenue for the year would be adequate without these new taxes, and would, indeed, actually exceed by a substantial sum our expenses.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the expenditure in the year after the War.

6.0 P.M.

But we are dealing with the expenditure of this year, and I venture to suggest, with full confidence, that when we have before us an enormous deficit, we are bound to get every penny of revenue we can from the taxpayer, realising, as we must do, that the revenue will do but little more than cover the Debt charges. I think the tax which has been most heavily bombarded is the Railway Tax. It is natural that, on a Bill of this kind, the Debate must necessarily take the shape of various suggestions, which may be better considered in a practical form on the Committee stage, and I can assure hon. Members, with regard to the Railway Tax, that the suggestions thrown out will be most carefully and most sympathetically considered. Some of the difficulties, we are told, might be got over by exempting season ticket holders from the charge. It has been suggested, in a very forcible speech by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that some difficulties might be got over by increasing the cost of the ticket, and by allowing low-priced tickets to go free of taxation altogether. Something, too, it is said, might be done by exempting commercial travellers altogether from taxation. It would be obviously impertinent for the Government to make up their minds before they had heard the criticisms of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I venture to suggest that there are serious objections to the various courses which have been advocated, as well as obvious advantages, and that the tax in its essence is a good way of obtaining a substantial sum of revenue. Though I do not shut the door to any reconsideration of the scale of the tax or of the principle of the tax, I do not wish to be committed to anything further this afternoon than to considering what Amendments we shall recommend the Committee to accept when the Committee stage comes, I think, next Wednesday.

With regard to matches, I listened very carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and also to the speech made by the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. A. Stanley), who told us that he had great experience in the match trade from his connection with a very eminent firm. I am sorry to say that, so far as I myself am concerned, I was not very much impressed with the strength of the case against this tax. Hon. Members keep on saying that such-and-such an impost that is attempted is put upon a set of people who have deserved very well, who have behaved very well, and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Nobody doubts that all the taxpayers, on the whole, are patriotic and right-minded citizens. We are not looking to punish anybody; we are looking to get revenue. I have not the slightest doubt that the match makers—perhaps I ought to say the match manufacturers of this country, because that is a much less ambiguous term—I have not the least doubt that they can challenge comparison with any other industry in regard to the patriotic manner in which they have conducted themselves during the War. But we believe that there is a large consumption of matches, and that we can get a substantial revenue out of the tax upon those matches.

Very little has been heard—indeed, nothing has been heard—this afternoon from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool about the allegation which obtained currency in the Press that we had chosen a most inconvenient basis for the levying of this tax—that if we had known a little more about the trade we should have known that it dealt in boxes and grosses, and that we have dealt with ten thousands of matches. The match trade have sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very well-considered and powerful letter of argument this morning. They have abandoned that basis of attack, and do not mention it. It is obvious that the reason why this method of taxation was chosen was because we thought it would press more lightly, and be able to be adjusted more quickly, by a trade which was conducted in boxes, for if we taxed the box we found that the only method the trade could have of passing on the tax was to increase the price, but if we taxed the match we found they could decrease the number of matches per box as an alternative or in addition to increasing the price. I venture to suggest that on examination the House of Commons will find, even as the match trade has iound—because they are silent on the topics—that this is a more convenient and not a less convenient way of charging the tax than any other scheme that could have been devised.

Again, I say, that if anybody can think of a better way, a way which will yield us the same revenue, to be as quickly collected as the tax that we have suggested, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Board of Customs and Excise will carefully consider that suggestion. I know there is an alternative suggestion made both by the match trade and in the House of Commons that this contribution should be obtained from them by an increase in the Excess Profits Tax. I suggest that we cannot be very much moved by the pitiable story of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who gave it to us with all his accustomed vehemence and force, of a languishing and perishing trade which has made excess profits in spite of its hardships. Despite the pathetic drama of the muriate of potash, despite the sorrowful story of the aspen wood, despite the increased competition of Japan, and despite the increase of freights, it is nevertheless true that the match manufacturers have kept up their proportion of the trade throughout the country, and that still they are able to maintain their trade against all foreign competition they have to meet, and that they still do a trade, according to their own figures, of 45 per cent. of the whole. If they are able to maintain their trade of 45 per cent. against foreign importers without the tax then, when the foreign, importer has to pay 3s. 6d., and the British manufacturers 3s. 4d., I venture to suggest that the differentiation of 2d. will be quite sufficient.

Derisory!

I should like the hon. Baronet to make good his case. We can dismiss all questions of freight, wood, and chemicals, because they have been in existence before, and despite their existence the British match manufacturer has not been troubled by an increase in the weight of foreign competition. The only new factors are that, owing to this Match Tax, there will have to be structural alterations in the factory and the warehouses, which will have to be made for the purposes of the payment of the duty.