asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that he was unaware of Egyptians having been deported on political grounds, whether his attention has been called to the discussion in the mixed Courts in Cairo of the question whether certain legal notices should be served on deported persons at their exile address or at their home address; whether he is now in a position to state the number of Egyptians deported from Egypt since the War began; the number in each place of detention; the treatment to which they are subject; and whether correspondence is allowed to and from them?

I have no information as to the point raised in the hon. Gentleman's question.

How is it that the Foreign Office does not read matter with reference to Egypt which is submitted to them?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have ever had before them for consideration the duly sworn affidavit of Lallapiteyage Sopia Hamy, of Algoda, Ceylon, that on the morning of the 18th June, 1915, some English officers and a number of Punjabi soldiers came to her house and, without asking any question whatever, searched the house, broke open a big box, took away 100 rupees and jewellery worth Rs. 300, took her husband, James Bass, in a boat across the river, and shot him and two other men within her view on the opposite bank, and that she afterwards went across with help and buried her husband's corpse; and whether Sir Robert Chalmers, then Governor of Ceylon, has reported the effect of such incidents on the loyalty and affection of the Sinhalese people?

I have read what purports to be a transcript of the affidavit in question, but I have no reason to believe that it accurately represents the facts.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how many of these affidavits are in circulation, and what action has been taken with reference to the deponents?

Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will put down a question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of conscientious objectors who have been handed over to a civil public prison; how many, if any, still remain undergoing sentences of detention in military prisons; and how many, if any, who were sentenced to military detention have been removed from military prisons before completing their terms of sentence?

The statistics asked for are not in my possession, and much time and labour would be involved in the process of obtaining them. The removal of soldiers undergoing detention would only be effected by a draft going over seas, or by remission of sentence; such soldiers could not be removed to a civil prison.

asked whether instructions have been issued to tribunals how to deal with applications for variation of certificates of exemption from non-combatant service; if so, in what sense have these instructions been given; and whether men in the Non-Combatant Corps will now be able to apply for variation of their certificates so as to place them in an equal position with those who have more recently been before tribunals?

Tribunals do not receive instructions from the Army Council, but from the Local Government Board. Men who are soldiers cannot appeal to tribunals.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, since August, 1914, the 67tn provisional battalion, National Reservists, 2nd/5th Essex Regiment, have been doing duty at a considerable distance from their own locality and homes; and whether, with due regard to the interests of the Service, arrangements can be made that Reservists should be put on duty within accessible distance from their homes?

The men in question are no longer National Reservists, but are enlisted Territorials, and are liable to serve anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Provisional Battalions are brigaded, and are located according to the military necessities of Home defence.

asked whether Ernest Blythe, deported from Ireland to Abingdon some weeks before the insurrection in Ireland, has been re-arrested; if so, on what charge; when and where he will be tried; where he is now; and whether friends will be allowed to visit him?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. As I have already informed the hon. Member by letter, Blythe has been interned under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and is at present in Brixton Prison. He is allowed to be visited by friends on special orders from the Prison Commissioners.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can specify the authority under which General Maxwell, in the course of the insurrection in Dublin, intimated to the authorities of the Catholic Church there that he strongly disapproved of priests visiting and giving spiritual consolation to wounded Volunteers, and that if such visits were not stopped strong measures would be taken?

asked whether Michael M'Cormack, of Westmeath, is still in Wakefield Detention Barracks; whether he has yet been tried or charged with any illegality; and, if not, when he will be either tried or released and compensated for imprisonment without charge?

Michael M'Cormack has been released.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is with his concurrence that a meeting organised by the Gaelic League in Glasgow to provide relief for the starving and ill-treated prisoners of war in Barlinnie Prison has been prevented and the hall seized by the police, and whether immediate instructions will be issued for the supply of a sufficiency of wholesome food for the maintenance of health of these men, and whether all restrictions on the holding of meetings or other actions for the provision of supplies for them will be immediately removed?

I have no knowledge of the matters referred to, and I have not yet had sufficient time to make inquiries, but I am sure that the statements as regards food arc without foundation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether what occurred in Glasgow had his concurrence?

I have not had time to inquire what has occurred about this meeting.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know whether what has passed has had his concurrence?

My trouble is that I do not know what has passed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, whether instructions will be issued for the removal of all these prohibitions?

The question of prohibiting meetings must depend on the character and objects of the meeting. As to whether a meeting has been prohibited or not, I have not yet received any information. It is necessary to give time in order to obtain information from Scotland.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date, approximately, information will be available as to the probable yield in a full year of the Excess Profits Duty levied upon co-operative societies?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in business circles regarding the constitution and procedure of the Treasury Committee on New Issues; and whether he proposes to increase the size of the Committee so as to include members having special knowledge of finance and company law and procedure, with the needs of the present situation, and with the capital requirements of the commercial world?

As regards the first part of the question, I may refer my hon. Friend to answers which I have already given on this subject and of which I am sending him copies. As at present advised, I see no sufficient reason for increasing the size or altering the constitution of the Committee.

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he has observed that the Investigation Committee in its recent Report describes its proposals as a scheme to bring about6 the financial soundness of the National Insurance system; and whether, in view of the anxiety likely to be caused by a statement of this kind, implying, as it clearly does, a measure of existing insolvency, he will say whether the Government has in its possession detailed evidence on which the language used by the Commissioners is founded?

The hon. Member will, I think, find that the facts on which the recommendations of the Committee were based are fully set out in their Report.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he sanctioned the recent circular issued to juvenile Labour Exchanges, in which it is stated that it will scarcely be practicable to raise the age of school attendance; and whether, in view of this statement being in conflict with previous statements of the educational policy of the Government, he will seek an early opportunity to explain in this House the latest intentions on this matter?

The memorandum was referred to the Board of Education by the Board of Trade before its issue. The Government adhere to the view that the raising of the school age is a matter of the greatest importance, though the difficulties of legislating on the subject are, as experience has shown and my hon. Friend well knows, considerable. With this view there is nothing in the circular to conflict. The Report of the Departmental Committee now sitting will probably emphasise the necessity of dealing with the problem, and will, I hope, contribute to its solution.

asked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been called to numbers of complaints by contractors for shells of the short delivery of steel undertaken to be supplied to them by the Munitions Committee; whether he is aware that a firm entered into a contract in November last for the delivery of 1,000 shells per week, and that they have made between the date of their contract on the 17th April not less than twenty-eight formal requests for steel, gauges, and copper bands; if he will say whether these demands have been punctually met; whether the total quantity of steel supplied to these contractors up to the 5th April was 125 tons, being 100 tons short of the amount required to make the shells contracted for; whether the organised night-shift of workers has been disbanded in consequence of the delays in delivery; and whether the contractors will now receive the necessary supplies to enable them to complete their contract, and an admission that the contractors are not to blame for the delay that has already occurred?

I suggest to the hon. Member that it is very undesirable to answer questions of this character on the floor of the House, and I have repeatedly appealed to hon. Members not to place such questions on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member will give the names of the firms to which he refers, I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result privately.

I will see that my right hon. Friend has the names in question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information regarding the progress of British Dyes, Limited?

If the hon. Member will let me know more precisely the nature of the information which he desires, I will see what can be done to obtain it.

asked how many ships are under construction for allied and friendly neutral owners in British and Irish shipyards and upon which work is now constantly proceeding; and what is the average tonnage of such ships?

There are thirty-seven ships under construction in the United Kingdom for allied and neutral owners. On ten of these vessels work is proceeding constantly. The average gross tonnage of the thirty-seven ships is 7,276 tons, and of the ten vessels 7,291 tons.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has observed the frequency with which his colleagues have given interviews to American and other neutral journalists, and that thus pronouncements of the highest political importance are set before other countries before being offered to Parliament or the British public; and whether he will arrange that such important utterances of Ministers as cannot be conveniently made in this House may be conveyed to British or Colonial journals before being made public to foreigners?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 24th May, in which, in my opinion, he gave a complete answer to the criticism contained in the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that my question would also apply to the interviews given with respect to India by the Secretary of State for India, and by the Viceroy of India, which were communicated to United States papers, though the United States have no kind of special interest in Indian affairs?

I do not see any reference to India in the question.

asked whether, in view of the largely increased cost of living, the Government have any intention of proposing legislation to increase the rate of old age pensions or to remove the limitation of earnings of pensioners?

I fear I can add nothing to the previous answers I have given on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the leaders of the Irish parties with a view to the settlement of Irish affairs, and what progress has been made in that direction?

In view of the delicate negotiations which are now going on, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question until next week.

I beg to move, after the words "duties of Customs, that is to say:" to insert the words,

"Cocoa (not de-husked or kiln-dried)

the cwt. £2 2s. 0d."

I desire that the Cocoa Duties should be equalised with the Tea Duties. I have pressed this point on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on several Budget occasions. I thought that in the present Budget the Resolution passed through Committee had affected my purpose. I was therefore surprised to find, when the Resolution came into operation, that it had a somewhat different effect to that which the House of Commons believed and intended it should have. The object of my Amendment is to correct the matter. I am glad to see that in the Amendment put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principle is accepted. Anyone wishing to understand this Amendment should look at Clause 2, which deals with coffee, and he will then see the point. The Cocoa Duty was quite out of relation both to the Tea and Coffee Duty. This matter has been brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am glad to say it has received sympathetic attention. The Amendment proposed to-day really establishes the Cocoa Duty on a correct and scientific basis, and if this change were not made you would not have the three duties agreeing with one another, but a most important trade in this country would suffer under an injustice. Perhaps the Committee will realise how great the trade is when I say it has more than doubled in the last two or three years. I thought it right to give that explanation of the Amendment, though I need not enlarge on the subject further.

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to make a few explanations in answer to my right hon. Friend's Amendment, as to why it is that we propose now to alter by 25 per cent, the original duties which were contained in the Resolution passed by this House. Our object, as I stated on introducing the Finance Bill was to secure that we should get precisely the same charge upon the beverage of cocoa as we had already upon the beverage of tea. There had been for a very long time a complaint in this House, from all quarters, that cocoa and coffee were more lightly taxed than tea, with the result that those who drank cocoa and coffee were less taxed than the tea-drinkers. We felt the force of that criticism, and we therefore resolved, in so far as we could, to invite the Committee to alter the taxation on coffee and cocoa in order to impose upon them precisely the same burden as was imposed upon tea. That meant that the cup of cocoa or the cup of coffee should have imposed upon it, having regard to the amount of coffee or cocoa contained in that cup, the same tax as the cup of tea. The Committee will understand that in any change of taxation of this kind we are necessarily very hampered in the inquiries which we can make before the Budget is actually introduced. We did all that we could by way of discreet inquiry in order to discover what would be the precise true relation between tea, coffee and cocoa. I have now to admit that our inquiries did not lead us to the right result. Since the Budget was introduced we have had a flood of facts and figures laid open to us which we never could have obtained in any circumstances before the Budget was introduced, and until the great pressure of a new tax was imposed upon the trade. We have come to the conclusion, after the fullest inquiry, that the true relation between cocoa, coffee and tea is 4½d. a. pound, on cocoa, 4½d. a pound on raw coffee, and 1s. a pound on tea. It is within the experience of every hon. Member present that in making a cup of tea you put muck less tea into the pot than you have to put coffee or cocoa in making a cup of equal strength. I venture, therefore, to propose to the Committee that these rates should now be accepted as a final settlement of the question as between tea, coffee and cocoa, and I should hope that in all future impositions or alterations of the tax we should retain once, and for all these relations between the rates of duty. Therefore, while I would ask my right hon. Friend not to proceed with his Amendment, I would ask the Committee to accept the three subsequent Amendments which I shall have to move. I would only add this single point: the tax has been in existence now for some number of weeks at the rate of 6d. a pound. Cocoa has been sold to the consumer at the higher price, and I do not think it would be equitable to reduce the tax back to the time of its original imposition, which would mean that the dealers would get the money returned to them which they paid in full tax, whereas the public could not get it back. I propose therefore that the change should only date from the 21st day of June, that is to-day, and that up till to-day the original tax should remain.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out Clause 5.

I am afraid it will seem very ungrateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for me now to move that these duties be left out altogether, after the handsome way he has treated me over the other Amendment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will excuse me. He knows I take a strong opinion with regard to this Sugar Tax, and whether I succeed in my proposal or not, the Committee, I think, will agree that it is a question of the greatest importance, and it is one which, I venture to say, this House has not sufficiently considered. The Clause which I propose to leave out refers to the Schedule, and proposes that certain new duties set out in the Schedule should come into operation instead of the present ones. Those changes may be all summed up by saying that a ½d. shall be added to the tax on sugar, and that makes about £7,000,000 additional tax imposed on sugar in this Budget, or a total tax on this third most important article of consumption in this country of £21,000,000 a year. Now this is a gigantic imposition, and as the price of sugar has been greatly raised, quite apart from the tax, I do think the matter ought to be carefully considered before we agree to this great additional burden. One of the points I desire to make with regard to this Sugar Duty is that this House does not know what is being made on sugar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted to us that sugar is being sold at a profit, but we do not know how much profit. It is important we should be told, and we ought to have been told long since. This House has allowed for eighteen months the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Sugar Commission, a body in which I have no confidence whatever, to be the sole importer of sugar in this country, and to sell it at what price they like to the trade. I say that this has been done at a fearful cost to the nation, and the House of Commons has scarcely done its duty in allowing that to go on for so long. Beyond the duty we are imposing, the Chancellor is levying another secret duty, and has been doing so for a year past on sugar, and it is totally unconstitutional for this House to allow any burden to rest on the backs of the people without letting them know the amount, and without agreeing that its imposition is just and necessary in all the circumstances.

I will explain that.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman's explanation will not blind the eyes of the House into allowing any secret charge of this kind to be made without the people knowing all about it. I found amongst the letters awaiting me last night one of the monthly Returns issued by the Board of Trade dealing with the price of food. Only last week the Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the cost of food. The way the Government proceed in these matters is very mysterious, but this ought not to escape the vigilance of the Committee. One would think that the Government do not know why food is dear, but I would like to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the great source of the dearness of sugar at any rate. [Laughter.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer laughs. I am very glad he is in a pleasant mood, because we are more likely to do better with him when he is in that mood. Nevertheless, I ask the Committee not to be put off any of these points by the merriment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman is mainly responsible for the dearness of sugar, and the Government are responsible for it since the commencement of the War. Some time ago the Prime Minister, with the feeling that lawyers know more about these matters than anybody else, secured the services of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with sugar, and then we heard rumours of the millions my right hon. Friend had invested in sugar. This information got about, and my right hon. Friend took an easy way of settling the matter by taking charge of the supplies of sugar as they came in, and then he was in a position to do as he pleased. The result of the action of the Government in this matter has been that a burden of £20,000,000 has been placed on the backs of the people of this country. I have got here a paper showing the rates at which the prices of food have gone up. The table I am quoting from will be found on page 197 of the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," and it is a very curious thing that whereas there have been advances in the price of everything else, sugar out-tops them all. Fourteen articles were taken, and the average shows an advance of 55 per cent., but in the case of sugar the advance is 155 per cent. When you take into account the fact that sugar is the third article in quantity, and more than that in cost, of the articles of food imported into this country, the Committee -will readily appreciate what an increase of 155 per cent, in the price means. I think lion. Members ought to think once and twice before putting another halfpenny per pound on this article.

But for the action of the Government this country would have been in an extraordinary position as compared with belligerent countries with regard to the rise in food prices. There are only fourteen articles dealt with in the table to which I have referred, and the average rise in price in small towns and villages in regard to those articles is 55 per cent., and I believe that sugar accounts for about 10 per cent, of the whole, so that the average rise might have been 40 per cent, or 45 per cent, only but for the extraordinary rise which has taken place in the price of sugar. That is a fact which I think the Committee ought to have before it in dealing with this tax. Owing to the action of the Government sugar is already so dear, and the burden on the backs of the people at the present moment is so great, that the Committee ought really to pause and consider once and twice before it adds another halfpenny per pound to this article. Supposing we were asked to place a tax of 12s. per quarter on wheat, what a fuss there would be here, and what Government could live and propose it? The Government, however, have done just as bad, for sugar is just as bad an article as wheat to tax, as far as the burden on the people is concerned. Many of my hon. Friends behind me are rather suspicious about my views on this subject because I am a Free Trader, but I am sure they would sympathise with me if they thought there was anything in the nature of a tariff in my proposals; but the imposition of a heavy burden on the people, even from a Tariff Reformer's point of view, is of no good whatever to this country. It may be said that the production of sugar is not increasing and therefore the placing of a heavy burden on sugar comes as an undisguised blow on the backs of the people. When I agitated this question in reference to the Russian Sugar Convention, I remember having a conversation with the late Mr. Lowther, who was then the Member for Thanet, a man we all respected very much, although many of us differed from his opinions. Mr. Lowther used to say to me constantly, "Lough, you are perfectly right about sugar; I do not want any burden put on sugar, because we get it mostly from abroad, and we shall only be paying money into the pockets of the Germans at the cost of our own people." I do not want any burden of that kind on sugar, and Tariff Reformers, if there are any here now, ought to support me in putting in a protest against this heavy burden being placed on sugar.

4.0 P.M.

I have tried to find out broadly what the price of sugar was before the War, and I have been told that for ten years the average price of sugar before the War ranged from 1¾d. to 2d. per pound, and that was what we were paying for sugar then. To-day we are paying from 5¼d. to 5½d. per pound for granulated sugar, and 6d. per pound for cubes, and the Sugar Duty is two and a half times as great as it was then. The rise is 150 per cent., and it really means that this great article of consumption, which is the basis of many of our manufactures, has been raised in price from 2d. to 6d. per pound, and I maintain largely raised by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have to come back once again to the merriment my right hon. Friend displayed when I first made that charge definitely against him. I want to make the matter perfectly clear to the Committee, because I want in this effort to carry everybody with me. How is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised the price of sugar to 6d. per pound? It is simply because he shuts the ports to sugar. If we can get sugar cheap, what harm will it do to let us have it?

Where from?

Anywhere. I am not going to answer that question. If I begin to answer the right hon. Gentleman I put myself on a level with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a thing which I entirely protest against doing. Who is it that manages the supply of sugar? The right hon. Gentleman has the assistance of one or two small committees mainly composed of lawyers, but I believe in experts in dealing with sugar.

This is not the occasion for that criticism. The proper occasion to criticise the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer administratively is when we are in Committee of Supply. I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman bringing in the question of sugar control as far as it is relevant to the additional tax, but he must not use this occasion for criticising the Chancellor's action as Chairman of the Sugar Commission.

I think your interruption is most reasonable. I was led into this digression by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, because when a short time since I asked him when we should have an opportunity of discussing the sugar question he said, "On the Budget." I admit that answer was not binding, but you. Sir, have already given me all the liberty I desire. You have admitted that as far as it is relevant the matter may be mentioned. I do not want to push it one bit further. What good would I do my argument by pressing it further? The Government, instigated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has shut the ports of this country to sugar, and therefore he ought to hesitate before he puts on a tax of ½d per pound. Let us not get back into the argument whether the Government's handling of sugar since the War broke out has been all that it should have been. The question this afternoon is: Shall we add another halfpenny to the price? Shall we add this seven-million blow to our industries and this very heavy burden on the people of this country? I say that we ought to hesitate, and I will close by merely dealing with one argument which may be used against me. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that we must have money. In the first place, you need not have the money. I believe that without this tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have £500,000,000 this year, and at any rate he is putting on other heavy burdens. There are many ways of getting the money besides this way, and whatever other means the Chancellor of the Exchequer might resort to, this is an exceedingly bad method, because, looking at the blow given to our manufactories as well as to the burden on the people of the country, it will probably cost a great deal more than the £7,000,000 which it will produce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a very pleasant mood. Perhaps he has made up his mind to abandon the tax. If so, I should be very glad to hear that he is prepared to abandon the Clause.

I desire to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in his protest against this tax. All taxation should be equitable, economically sound, and productive. This tax is productive, but in so far as it is productive it is to a large extent inequitable and economically unsound in its incidence. Leaving out of account questions of equity as between rich and poor, the tax is inequitable as between poor and poor because the amount of a man's contribution through it depends not upon his ability to pay but upon the size of his family. The Sugar Duty now amounts to a charge of about 10d. a week on the working man with an average family, and all the food duties, including sugar, come to about 1s. 6d. a week. I do not think it requires very much imagination to realise that those are very heavy items for poor households, where every penny has to be watched. We are told, however, that all such considerations should be set on one side because we are at war, but I submit that is a reason why all the more attention should be paid to them. Sugar, as everybody knows, is a great producer of physical energy, and this tax is trenching on the margin of subsistence in hundreds of thousands of families, and is tending to reduce the efficiency of the workers, and it is doing that at this critical juncture when it is most important that the physical capacity of the workers should be maintained at a maximum level, because it is vital that the productive output of the country, not only in munitions but in many other industries as well, should be as large as possible, and, indeed, the successful prosecution of the War depends in no small degree on this being accomplished. Moreover, this is not a War Tax in the sense that it will terminate when the War ends. We should constantly bear in mind that we are budgeting, not only for the present year, but in all probability for many years ahead. For my part I see small prospect of any substantial reduction in any of the War Taxes which have been imposed for a long period to come, and therefore it is all the more wrong to impose on the poorer classes this heavy burden, a burden which will remain when the lean days have come upon us. I recognise, of course, that money must be got for the prosecution of the War. As much money should be raised from revenue as can wisely be obtained, but money may be got too dearly if it means any lessening of health or efficiency, and however great the emergency it is not right to increase the Sugar Duty to the level which is proposed. This is all the more true in view of the great increase which has taken place in the cost of living. That increase is, of course, proportionately a much heavier burden on the poorer classes than on other classes. The rise in food prices alone now amounts to a charge of nearly 10s. a week on the working man with an average family. That is a very serious matter, especially for the poorer households, say, for the man with 30s. a week.

I hold that in principle no taxation on the necessaries of life should be levied on those who are below the level of subsistence, and owing to the prevailing high prices many of the poorer classes are having a hard struggle to make both ends meet. It is true, on the other hand, that large numbers of the workers are, for the time being, earning high wages and their position has been improved, but such improvement will, in all probability, only be temporary. The prosperity is likely to pass away, but the Sugar Duty is much more likely to remain. If the Chancellor could impose this tax for the period of the War solely on the better-paid workers well and good, but that is exactly what he cannot do, and it is the inherent vice of the Sugar Duty and all kindred taxes that they fall alike both on those who can afford to pay and on those who cannot afford to pay, and in levying these taxes the Chancellor is creating much more inequity than equity. Whereas, as I have said, many of the workers are enjoying a period of temporary prosperity, it is a great mistake to suppose, as some people seem to do, that all the poorer classes are rolling in wealth. Nothing could be more untrue. As a matter of fact large numbers of them, owing to the increased cost of living, are no better off in real wages than they were before the War. Amongst these are the old age pensioners, who number nearly a million, some sections of industrial workers, particularly in the printing and building trades, and in certain branches of the textile trades, many railwaymen, post-office servants, policemen, and municipal employés, despite war bonuses, and the vast majority of the clerk and shop-assistant class and lodging-house keepers, especially on the East Coast, and tens of thousands of widows and spinsters and people with very small fixed incomes, and lastly, though by no means least in importance, the families of many of the better-paid artisans who have gone to the War. In the case of the better-paid workers the separation allowance does not equal the wages previously earned, and also, be it remembered, the separation allowances were fixed in the autumn of 1914 to meet a cost of living which was very much lower than it is now. Owing to the high prices at present ruling many of these persons I have enumerated have been driven near or below the level of subsistence, and they ought not to be called upon to bear certainly not on the necessaires of life, and sugar is a necessary of life, such a heavy indirect tax as is involved in this duty, and I say this quite irrespective of whatever tax may be levied on the direct taxpayers, for all of them have a considerable margin above the subsistence level. Further, I should like, in passing, to point out that a great majority of the direct taxpayers, who pay Super-tax, or who pay Income Tax at the higher rates, are men above the military age, and a few are ladies. Neither of these classes can go to the War, and therefore it is only right that they should contribute heavily in money, and should continue to contribute heavily in money when the War is over. Moreover, if, owing to the war, their income in reduced, or, again, if the income of direct taxpayers who are fighting in the War is reduced, they get corresponding relief from liability for Income Tax. I am not complaining of that. It is only just, but it is very different with the Sugar Duty. This tax goes on all the time, however much income is reduced. It is a hardship now on the families of many of our soldiers who are fighting at the War. They cannot avoid or evade it. It eats into separation allowances, and it will remain a burden on our soldiers when they return from the War.

One of the main reasons given by the Chancellor for increasing the Sugar Duty was to bring the price of sugar more in conformity with the quotation in New York. He said that we were selling sugar wholesale in bond at a slightly lower price than in New York, and therefore he must impose this duty to adjust the matter. Personally, I am not impressed with this argument, and I think it will be small consolation to the poorer classes to be told that, although their sugar is costing them more, it is not costing them more than it would do if they lived in New York, though I am not sure that the retail price of sugar in New York is as high as here. But, however, that may be, I think the poorer classes are entitled to ask, not only what is the price of sugar in New York, but what is the price of all other articles of food in New York now as compared with before the War. If this inquiry is made the reply must be that, although sugar has risen in price in New York, the general rise in food prices has been infinitely less than here. According to the latest returns the general rise in food prices in the United States during the War has been about 4 per cent., as against 59 per cent. here. Why, then, should sugar be singled out for this exceptional treatment? If New York is to be the standard I should have thought that sugar should be taxed as little as possible, in order to do something to adjust the general average of food prices as between the two countries This contention has, I think, all the more force because, after all, the Government has not shown any very great zeal in attempting to arrest the upward cost of food prices in this country. I know the difficulties of the problem, but I do think they might have done more than they have done, and apparently they now think so themselves, because they have at last appointed a Committee to investigate the matter. Meanwhile, it is certainly unfortunate that, in the case of sugar, that is the one article where the Government do control the price, they raise it very materially by this duty. So much so that sugar has risen much more in price than any other article in the Board of Trade list of food commodities. In fact, it is now about two and a half times the price it was when the War broke out. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] If my hon. Friend will refer to the "Labour Gazette" he will find that fact stated officially. I think the Government policy should have been to have taxed sugar as little as possible, so as to have done something to reduce the general upward tendency of food prices here.

I have one further point. When introducing the Budget the Chancellor said that the additional ½d. to be got from sugar would be imposed on the price, and he would take it in the form of duty, as if it were a matter of indifference whether the ½d. were put on the price or on the duty. In point of fact there is a most important difference. If the ½d. had been put on the price I should still think it, in all the circumstances, a wrong thing to do, but in the long run it would be far less burdensome to put the ½d. on the price rather than on the duty, because later on, when the War is over and the sale of sugar is not in Government hands, the price will adjust itself, but having put the £d. on the duty the burden is likely to remain. Clearly, if it is sought simply to make the quotation conform more nearly with New York, the ½d. should have been put on the price instead of on the duty. The fact is the whole of this New York argument will not bear serious investigation, and it only shows that the Chancellor is hard put to it to justify a tax which he has been most eloquent in denouncing in past years. The Chancellor has also sought to defend his policy on the ground that the increased price and higher duty have not materially reduced the consumption of sugar, but I do not think that means that the increased price is little or no burden. On the contrary, I think the correct conclusion to be drawn is that the great bulk of sugar used in the country is an absolute necessity and the people must have it, although the price has risen, just as they must have bread, and if bread were taxed I should not expect to see the consumption reduced, and I should be sorry if it were reduced.

It is true that a small proportion of the total sugar consumed in the country is used in what may be termed luxury trades for the making of confectionery, sweets, and so forth, and if the Chancellor desires to see the consumption of sugar reduced on sound lines here is his opportunity. Let the Government further curtail the amount -of sugar supplied to these trades. This is a practical proposition, and if it is given effect to some of the labour engaged in these non-essential occupations would be freed for other and more useful purposes, a certain amount of mercantile tonnage would be saved, consumption of sugar would be somewhat reduced, and the price of sugar required for the necessary needs of the people might be slightly lowered. I do venture to hope that he will at least give favourable consideration to the proposal I have made.

My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) and my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Arnold) have made speeches in opposition to the proposed increase of duty of ½d. on sugar. My right hon. Friend did not confine himself to his Motion, but he addressed the major part of his remarks to the activities of the Sugar Commission. It is true he was ruled out of order, and was informed that while it might be proper to make a reference to the activities of the Commission it would not be proper to enter either into a general attack or a general defence of the work of that body. I therefore will only make this reference in passing, to the prices of sugar sold duty free—the present prices of sugar in bond, and having stated that I shall have done with that part of the question. At this moment the wholesale price in bond of sugar in this country is lower than the wholesale price of sugar in America, also in bond.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the price in America?

30s. 6d. to day. I think there is some duty.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the retail prices?

I hope I may be allowed to go on with my argument. The wholesale price in bond is cheaper to-day in London than in New York. It appears to be overlooked by my right hon. and hon. Friends that before the War our main source of supply of sugar was beet sugar obtained from enemy countries. We were, in fact, exclusively supplied with German and Austrian sugar, and the price which they have given us as the pre-war price of sugar represents the price of German and Austrian beet sugar. The withdrawal of German and Austrian beet sugar from the world's market has greatly restricted the supply of sugar for the general consumption of the world outside Germany and Austria. We have to remember that those two countries were almost the biggest exporters of sugar in the world. I say "almost," because more sugar was obtained from Cuba than refined sugar from Germany and Austria. The outbreak of War withdrew at once from the world's supply of sugar an enormous source in the German and Austrian output. The effect was immediately a rise in the price of sugar. What my right hon. and hon. Friends overlooked is this great fact, that to-day it is no longer German and Austrian beet which governs the price of sugar for consumption in this country. At this moment it is the price of Cuban sugar which governs the price of sugar in the American markets. Cuban sugar is now the great source of supply during these months of the year—the great source of supply of raw sugar—and it is the price of Cuban sugar which governs the price of American refined sugar in the American market. When my hon. and right hon. Friends complain of the price of sugar in this country, they must remember that we do not produce sugar, either in our own country or in any of our Colonies, in any appreciable degree. We have to depend on foreign supplies.

What about Indian sugar?

There is no export of Indian sugar; they consume their own. We have to depend for consumption in this country on foreign sugar. We get a certain amount from the West Indies and Mauritius, but in the main we have to depend on Cuba and Java. Consequently, the price of sugar is entirely outside the control of the Sugar Commission, or, as my hon. Friend seems to think, my control. It depends entirely on the price of the raw material in Cuba and Java. The raw material has risen in price owing to the restricted supply by the destruction of the German and Austrian sources. Owing to that restricted supply the price has risen all over the world. It has risen, as my right hon. Friend correctly points out, to a greater degree than the price of any other article. Obviously that would be the case, because in no other instance were Germany or Austria the main sources of supply. As this source of supply has been closed to the world we have, necessarily, a greater world demand for the limited product. We now, as I say, sell in this country, wholesale in bond, sugar cheaper than it is sold in America in bond. We cannot continue to do that. We can only do it now because in the past we have bought large quantities of sugar at prices far below the present prices. We anticipated there would be a great rise in sugar, and consequently bought as much as we could while prices were still low. But I warn the Committee if there is no fall in the price of sugar we cannot continue to sell it below cost price. So far from anticipating a drop in the price of sugar, I anticipate there will have to be a rise in the price of sugar sold by the Sugar Commission. My hon. Friend asks, "Do we sell it cheaper here retail than do the Americans?" You have to add to our wholesale price in bond our duty of 1-Jd., and as our duty is far higher than the American duty we cannot, of course, sell it cheaper retail than the Americans do. But I will say this, that if the markets were open, having regard to the existing American wholesale prices, having regard to the existing freights, and having regard to the existing retail profit on sugar, if there were no duty—if the ports were open, there would still be no profit on the price of sugar to-day in this country. We sell it, having regard to the cost of freight and insurance—we sell it at a price lower than the American price, and the difference is very nearly the equivalent of the whole of that duty. Now I come to the duty itself, and to the question whether sugar is a proper subject for a Customs Duty. If we realised the whole of the sugar which we now hold at existing prices our profit would be something like £2,000,000, and it is because of that profit that we are enabled to sell the sugar cheaper than we are actually buying it at the moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that, suppose the account was closed now, and the balance of the stock sold, the amount of profit realised by the Government deal would be £2,000,000?

Yes, if ail our stocks were sold at the present price and the business closed, the amount of the profit would be £2,000,000. It is necessary to keep some profit of that kind in hand, because in going out of business we shall have to sell off our stocks and be at the mercy of the market. Now, as to the tax itself. Sugar was sold before the War at from 2d. to 2¼d. per pound. At that price there was a total consumption in this country of about 1,800,000 tons—an enormous consumption! It was a consumption far greater than that of any other European country. It cannot therefore be said that a consumption of that magnitude was necessary for health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the health of the other countries, both of colder and warmer climates in Europe, was maintained with a consumption varying from something like one-fourth to one-half of ours.

Did that include sugar used in manufactured articles and exported from this country?

That included the whole of the sugar used in manufacture and exported, which is not a very large proportion of the whole. The price has now risen from 2d. or 2¼d. up to 5d. or 5¼d. Notwithstanding that enormous increase in price the consumption has not been very greatly reduced. So little has the consumption been reduced that for other reasons, namely, of freight and now of exchange, we have found that we have had to use compulsion to reduce consumption. That is to say, that putting up the price has not been a sufficient inducement to cut down consumption from that enormous pre-war level, far higher here than in any other country in Europe, and we have had to reduce the consumption by limiting the amount which we will sell week by week. Let us see what that really means, and if it can possibly mean, as my hon. Friend suggests, that the masses of the people in this country are being seriously affected by the Sugar Duty. We know, according to experience, that whenever the price of sugar rose owing to the ordinary fluctuations of the market there was a great reduction in consumption. For instance, in 1911, owing to the comparative failure of the beet crop, sugar went to a price not very much below the price in bond to-day. The duty then, of course, was very much smaller. My right hon. Friend will remember that fact. Immediately on that increase of price the consumption was greatly lowered. But it has not been lowered to-day to that level,, showing, as proved beyond the possibility of contradiction, that the power to purchase sugared articles to-day is greater than it was in 1911. I quite admit that my hon. Friend can make an excellent case against this or any other tax in individual cases. He is a champion of the Income Tax as against the Sugar Tax. He says the Sugar Tax is inequitable not merely as between the rich and poor, but as between poor and poor, and he gives the case of a poor man with a large family who has to spend more on sugar than a poor man with a small family. But that is just as true of the Income Tax.

The Income Tax payer gets abatement.

Yes, he gets abatement for children under a certain age. The man who has a great many children, who is also a poor man, may be supporting his sisters, or his father and mother, and has other expenses which he cannot get rid of. It is just as true of the Income Tax and can be shown to be just as true of every tax. The only answer to all these arguments is, "Do not tax at all." We have to raise a revenue to the amount of £500,000,000. We must raise a revenue even of that gigantic total if we are to maintain our credit, to finance ourselves and to assist in financing our Allies in the War. If we are to undertake that great burden we cannot help imposing taxes upon every class. I readily admit that all the taxes we impose will operate, in individual cases, with great hardship and great inequity. I make my hon. Friend a present of that admission, but I may assure him that if he stood in my place he would never dream of giving up this tax. He would know that with an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ the burden of the inequities which exist in that tax operates far more unfairly than the inequities which I admit exist in the case of the Sugar Tax. If the Income Tax were 1s. in the £ and I had to choose between the addition of another 2d. or 3d. to the Income Tax or a ½d. to the Sugar Tax, I would unhesitatingly say, "Add to the Income Tax." When the Income Tax is at 5s. in the £ my hon. Friend does not know, or does not appreciate, the extraordinary hardships which necessarily arise. I would appeal to the Committee not to be led away by the force of the argument, which is undoubtedly true when the Income Tax is low, into believing that we can get a remedy for all our tax evils by adding to an Income Tax which is already 5s. in the £.

I have endeavoured to show, first, that sugar is an article which is consumed in this country now to an amount greater than is consumed in any other country in Europe. Secondly, I show that it is consumed to a degree greater than our freight, or our power to find foreign exchange—it all has to be paid for abroad—can allow; and, thirdly, I have shown that it has been necessary to cut down the consumption, not merely by adding to the tax, but by limiting the amount which comes into the country and by limiting the sales and consequently making people go short altogether. When we find these three conditions existing in regard to an article, I put it to the Committee that it is proper that taxation which has to be imposed should be imposed in respect of an article of that kind. We must cut down the consumption because we carry the sugar; we must cut down the consumption because we cannot, except with difficulty, pay for the sugar. Paying abroad is not the same thing as paying at home. When we pay abroad we have to pay with our capital securities. There is no other means of paying. There is a limit to the amount of our capital securities. We, therefore, have to cut down the consumption of the articles we import. There are two methods open to us in cutting down consumption of sugar—raising the price or prohibiting the sale. In either case the poor suffer; in either case they have to go short. Somebody has to suffer if we cut down the sales. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ration them with sugar!"] I wish my hon. Friend had to deal with the sugar-using trades, with the retail traders, with the wholesale traders and the manufacturers; he would then begin to know something of the difficulties of rationing. Rationing in this country is a very different thing from rationing in Germany. We have a great import and export trade to carry on. We are not self-contained, and the conditions are absolutely different. We may have to come to that, among other expedients, but do not let us come to an expedient of that kind before we must. If we have to cut down, as we must, the consumption of sugar, is there any better way than by raising the price by an increase of the duty, giving us at once a revenue and leaving the cutting down to the ordinary operations of supply and demand? I admit, of course, that it affects the poor. All taxation on necessary foodstuffs affect the poor; but we believe, and I put it to the Committee that the whole graduation of taxation, with this enormous Income Tax, has been based upon the assumption of making everybody and all classes pay according to their ability, and in that belief I beg the Committee to accept this additional tax of a ½d. on sugar.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech on the subject before the Committee. We all sympathise with him, of course, in the difficulties in which he is placed. His speech fell into two parts, not altogether consistent. The first part of his speech was occupied with a great defence of the Committee he has set up and the sugar operations it has carried on. The right hon. Gentleman first prided himself on being in the position of being able to sell sugar cheap.

In bulk.

Quite so. He then prided himself on being in a position of being able to make it artificially dear. What is the object of buying it cheap? He has revenue to get, I know, but he cannot pride himself on the one hand upon having bought cheap, and on the other hand of producing artificial scarcity. The other part of his speech dealt with the question of production in the British Dominions.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Committee when I dealt with that part of the subject earlier in the afternoon. There will be another occasion for a general sugar discussion. The question before the Committee is only whether the tax is justified in the present circumstances of the case.

I will not venture further on that point, except to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into it at great length, especially as to the sources of the supply. After your ruling, Sir, I will not pursue that subject. I will now deal with the question of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman says that we must curtail the supply of sugar and, therefore, must curtail the sale of what he has in hand. He lays down an extraordinary proposition which I was astonished to hear, namely, that whatever policy he adopts for raising the price or curtailing the supply, the poor must suffer. It is a doctrine which I am amazed to hear laid down by a member of a responsible Government. Imagine what an expression of opinion of that kind is going to carry outside the walls of this House. Enormous as the difficulties undoubtedly would be, the Government will have to overcome them before the people of this country will acquiesce in the doctrine that if suffering is to be imposed those least able are to bear it and the rich people are to be excused. The proposition will not hold water that if anyone is to go short of sugar the poor must go short and the rich must have as much as they want and more than is good for them.

I never said that.

That is the logical conclusion.

Every rise in price of an article of general consumption obviously affects the poor more hardly than it does the rich. All other conclusions of my statement than that are entirely erroneous. That is a conclusion which I should have thought would be obvious.

It is perfectly true that the conclusion is obvious. If owing to economic laws over which the Government has no control there is a rise in price it is obvious that those with the least purchasing power will suffer. Surely that is very different from the case of an article over which the Government has entire control and to which the ordinary economic laws therefore no longer apply. It is in the power of the Government to equalise what is always a hardship—a hardship sometimes produced by natural laws, but always a hardship, and one which the Government ought to endeavour to modify and not to intensify. The right hon. Gentleman is intensifying the economic difficulty by his tax. He has said that sugar would be dearer still, but he overlooks a growing danger, and that is the growing dissatisfaction of the mass of the people of this country at the increased cost of living. That is a difficulty which the Government apparently have realised by appointing a Committee of which my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Robertson) is the chairman. It is apparently appointed in order to consider how to obviate the rise in the price of food. I should think their first recommendation would be that this tax should be taken off. That is the only practical recommendation they could make. What is the object of appointing a number of eminent people to discuss the question of how food is to be cheaper if this House on the other hand sits down solemnly and makes food dearer? This question is naturally becoming a very serious one. I come in contact with it perhaps in some ways more practically than my right hon. Friend as an employer of labour who gets claims for advances of wages based on the increased cost of living. These claims are based on this contention, that the cost of living is going up, and therefore wages must be advanced, and when you get wages advanced you get back in the eternal vicious circle. You are not making these people pay the revenue. They are passing it on to the employer, who passes it on again. This is one of your fallacies, that you distribute it among people who can compel higher wages. You are placing the burden on the helpless people, on the old age pensioners, on women and children, on the people who are not enjoying higher wages. The curious position is that the better wages people are receiving the more they are in a position to pass on these duties, and the lower wages people are receiving, and the worse off they are, the more defenceless they are. The right hon. Gentleman says he must have this money for the purposes of our trade. We are not balancing our Budget at all. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that all the increased taxation he is raising is a very small fraction indeed of the money which is required to pay for the War or to finance the Allies. All he is doing, and all he can do, is to raise as large an amount of taxation as may be reasonable during the War, in order to pay off as much of the War as he can. There is a huge balance that he has to borrow, and his choice is not necessarily between Income Tax and Sugar Tax, but between Sugar Tax and loan. The consideration that arises in my mind is this. Is it reasonable, in the middle of a great War like this, to intensify the burden on a large section of your population in order to avoid a trifling increase in your floating debt or your permanent loan?

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

That does not make it any better or any worse. It is not a good argument. The right hon. Gentleman is not financing the whole War out of revenue. His division must be an arbitrary one at the best, and therefore I think it is a perfectly legitimate consideration as to whether it is a wise thing at a moment like this to increase the difficulty, which is a growing difficulty, and to increase discontent, which is growing, at a critical moment of the War in order to raise a day and a half's cost of the whole War. That to my mind is a serious financial consideration, and I think it is a mistake to go on piling taxes in this manner for what is only alter all in the long run a very trifling percentage of the total cost of the War. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling that he ought to raise as much taxation as he possible can, and that he has a willing public ready to make sacrifices, but there is a danger of driving a willing public too far. There is a danger of loading the patient donkey so far that the burden will become too great for him to carry. Automatic increases in cost will occur; all over the country you have petitions that old age pensions should be increased; you have a demand growing in volume and becoming more and more irresistible every day; you have increased demands for wages; you have increased demands in other directions. You are endeavouring to find means of reducing the cost of living, and it seems to me that it is flying in the face of the whole tendency of the present movement to go out of your way to increase the price of an article artificially which is of such enormous value as a foodstuff. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that because the British people consume more sugar than people in Continental countries, therefore they can do with a great deal less and maintain their present level of subsistence. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very great assumption. He assumes that all the people on the Continent have always been properly nurtured. That is the first time I have heard such an assumption made. It is a notorious fact that in all countries in the world, even in this country, but especially in highly Protectionist countries, a good many people are living under the proper margin of subsistence, and the fact that they did not consume more sugar did not show that they did not physiologically require more sugar in order to produce a better state of efficiency, but that they could not afford to buy the sugar.

The right hon. Gentleman now says you must cut down the people's sugar consumption and ration them, as Germany, Austria, and Hungary have done. You could do the same with meat and arrive at even more striking figures, and also with bread, when you would probably discover that the British people have been in the habit of consuming more foodstuffs of every description than any country ort the Continent. That argument is absolutely unsound. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any real expert advice from skilled hygienists in this country that a diminution in sugar consumption would not be a bad thing either for growing children, to whom sugar is a most important food, or for people who are working hard and who have a natural tendency to eat more sugar at a time when the price of meat is rapidly rising? That is a thing the right hon. Gentleman must not forget—that the rapid rise in the price of meat will have a tendency to keep up the consumption of sugar, because sugar and meat in many physiological respects have the same effect on the human system. Therefore I do not think that argument of the right hon. Gentleman, effective as it may be from the debating point of view, will stand very much scientific investigation. The right hon. Gentleman says, as far as I can understand him, firstly, that he has not got the sugar, and therefore he must curtail its use. If you must curtail its use, curtail it as equitably as you can. Secondly, he says that everyone must bear burdens throughout this War. I have pointed out that, war or no war, it is not sound finance to throw burdens on shoulders least able to bear them, to endeavour in a concentrated period to overload those who are bearing the present struggle for the benefit of future generations for whose emancipation we are fighting. Thirdly, you are tending to endanger that very efficiency of the people of this country at a moment when you are asking them to make the greatest physical effort in order to continue the War. The points made by the right hon. Gentleman are not good points. All the objections urged against his increase of tax are unanswerable, and I think he would be well advised even at this moment to sacrifice his dearly beloved revenue and withdraw this increase on an already heavy tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a speech ostensibly in support of this addition to his tax, but it was a most convincing speech in opposition to the arguments which he submitted. He gave the most eloquent and most convincing testimony that this increased tax should not be proceeded with. Austria and Germany have been big exporters of sugar in the past. The crop from Cuba varies, of course, but I think the average is under a million tons. The right hon. Gentleman would have the Committee support him in his increase of this tax because the supply is limited. If the supply of an article is limited I cannot see what advantage is to be gained by increasing the tax upon it. It seems to me that is an argument in favour, not of increasing the tax but of letting it come in as freely as possible. To retard the import is not, surely, to improve the position. He has argued that his object is that this might perhaps decrease the consumption, but he admitted that, owing to the high level of wages and this great prosperity which we are at present enjoying, largely an artificial prosperity, the consumption had not decreased. He condemned himself out of his own mouth by saying that the high wages which the better working classes are enjoying have not led to any reduction, and that we were the only people who are suffering, and that this proposed addition falls most heavily upon those least able to bear it and those who are quite unable to stand a further increase. He referred to the old age pensioner. We know that a pension of 5s. per week is only worth about 3s. or 2s. 6d. compared with what it was worth previously, and we all know that there is to be an increased number of people in receipt of old age pensions and other pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that. He said that the better paid worker was not affected. We know that there are higher wages being paid on the average to-day than ever before in the history of the country, and it seemed to me that his argument, instead of convincing any single Member of the Committee to his view, was rather calculated to convince the Committee that it is a very serious crisis at which we have arrived. It seems to me that even at this eleventh hour we might appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider this proposal as to whether we should proceed with this increased duty. I hope that the proposer of this Amendment will proceed to a Division, because I am convinced that there is a large section of Members of this House on both sides who, while holding quite different fiscal opinions, are averse at this particular period to placing an increased burden upon the poorer classes of the community.

The right hon. Gentleman who moved this proposal and, I think, the right hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) argued that the only alternative to proceeding with this duty would be to increase the amount of money borrowed by Loan or by Treasury Bills, or some other form, and did not seem to think that that meant very much, because it was so small in comparison to the large amount which the Government have to raise in the shape of Loans. I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman in that argument. While I agree that the amount here involved, some £7,000,000, is not a very large amount, still it is a considerable item. I am entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising as much revenue as possible from taxation which will not in any sense militate against the productive power of the country, but I do not agree with him that all taxation is alike, and that, all taxation would have the same effect. There are undoubtedly certain taxes which are sound taxes, but I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Arnold) showed that this tax particularly, because it is not equitable, and because it is not economically sound, is one which we are justified in opposing. I suggest that a much better method of raising the necessary revenue would have been to carry out the suggestion which I think was made by a former leader of the Labour party, who is now the Minister of Education, and that is to have a graduated Income Tax upon wages. Then you would have tapped the higher paid workmen, and you would not, as you will by this increased duty, penalise the poorer, underpaid worker. I do, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Government to reconsider this proposal, both in the interests of equity and in the interests of sound finance, because the fact that at a time like the present we are increasing the duty upon sugar, which is very likely to become a permanent part of our machinery, means that we are accentuating rather than alleviating the increased cost of living, and we are doing something which I believe to be both economically and financially unsound and unjust.

It does not seem to me to be quite honest to sit here and listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) without making a protest against the tone and substance of that speech. Any hon. Member could get up with the greatest ease and protest against any tax, particularly any indirect tax, on the ground that it affects the poor. I believe that every hon. and right hon. Member of this House as much regrets every increased tax, and every additional burden placed upon the poor as the right hon. Member for Swansea, but they would not get up at a time like this and address the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman did. It is very easy to make the difficult task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer more difficult at a time like this, but there is not one hon. Member who has spoken in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sacrifice a miserable day's beloved revenue. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the difficult task he has to perform, possibly apportion taxation, and endeavour to levy it all over the country fairly when he is met in that way by the right hon. Gentleman. I am unwilling to sit behind the right hon. Gentleman and listen to such a speech without entering my protest against it, although it is merely by accident that the right hon. Gentleman and I happen to be sitting together again. He says it is only a day's revenue. Is a day's revenue a small matter? Is five millions, six millions, or seven millions a small matter at a time like this? Is not the principle a thing of moment? The right hon. Gentleman's speech amounted to a claim that everything should be transferred to the Income Tax payer. Does not the Income Tax payer pay now? In all conscience, does he not pay as heavily as he possibly can? It is not that the Income Tax payer is objecting to pay more, but it amounts to this, that the right hon. Gentleman gets up and protests against this tax, which anybody else could have done. Every other hon. Member sympathises quite as much with the poor as does the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps they have more conscience and are unwilling to embarrass the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his exceeding difficult task at a moment like this. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as an employer of labour. I do not know whether he has any proof that large numbers of people in this country are living under the margin of subsistence, or whether he spoke for his own employés, and in that sense was a special representative of people in this country. I protest against such a statement coming from such a quarter. The right hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson) who sat beside the right hon. Gentleman exercised an exceedingly wise discretion in preserving silence on the subject. Had he followed in the same sense it would have emphasised the objection raised at Question Time to his appointment on the Price of Food Committee.

Even at the risk of offending the susceptibilities of my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees), whom the accident of political fortune and political changes of opinion have separated from me, I feel bound to enter one word or two of protest against, this particular tax. It is perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reminded us, that there is great pressure upon all classes to bear special burdens of taxation in consideration of the enormous and almost incalculable cost of this War, but I am always of the belief that while there is at all times, even under normal conditions, a most urgent need that the character and incidence of every proposed tax should be analysed and carefully weighed, that need is never more urgent and never more imperative than when it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under quite abnormal conditions, to ask for special contributions in aid of the national revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not attempt to meet the very weighty points made by the hon. Member for Holmfirth (Mr. Arnold), who pointed out the essential inequitableness of this tax, especially in its incidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply to that was that all taxation is inequitable, and that even in the Income Tax there was inequity in its incidence as between man and man. By that reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that he had not appreciated the point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend was dealing with those who are not liable to Income Tax, but who have a very slender margin of subsistence, and whom it is the imperative duty of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, in time of war or in time of peace, to protect to the utmost of his capacity and power. Some of us feel very strongly that the inequitableness of this tax in relation to large classes of the population, whose condition is not materially benefited by the abnormal prosperity due to the War, does present a case to which we are bound to give very special emphasis and very special consideration.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid very special stress, in supporting this duty, upon the fact of the maintenance of a high level of consumption in this parti- cular commodity, sugar. If he were here now, and if this were the proper time, I should like to analyse the causes and explanation of the maintenance of the high level of consumption in this particular commodity. He would not for one moment suggest seriously that the large consumption of this particular commodity is explained by the ordinary consumption of the people of this country in their ordinary domestic life. He knows perfectly well that the Government itself has done an enormous amount to maintain a high level of consumption in connection with the needs of the Army. He is also aware—he must be aware—that there has been quite an abnormal demand for sugar in connection with gifts sent out to the troops. I doubt whether, despite the abnormal prosperity of large classes of the industrial population to-day, the real bonâ-fidedomestic consumption of sugar has been at such a high level during the last fifteen months as in the years preceding the outbreak of war. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that the national interest demands that by some process or other he should reduce this high level of the consumption of sugar, is the imposition of a tax the only or the best way in which to bring about a lower consumption? He says it is necessary in some way arbitrarily to reduce the demand for sugar, and the only way that he sees presents itself is that of raising the price. He did not meet the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arnold), who seemed to me to offer a very weighty suggestion when he drew a sharp distinction, I believe a perfectly just distinction, and, economically, a perfectly legitimate distinction between the relative injustice of the tax and the increase of the price of the commodity. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to restrict the consumption of sugar or to restrict the demand for sugar by increasing the price of the article, why not, while he has extraordinary power in respect of sugar, at once raise the price of the commodity directly rather than raise it in the form of a duty? There are vices inherent in a duty which are not inherent in the mere raising of the price of the commodity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be well aware that in connection with every tax imposed you not merely force the consumer to pay the amount of the tax but you force him at the same time to pay something extra in the way of interest on capital advanced in the payment of duty- We all know in the ramifications of ordinary trade to-day that what happens is that the ordinary consumer of the article that is subject to the tax pays in his retail price an enormously greater sum than the amount of the tax. I have repeatedly urged as one of the essential duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in imposing any tax upon an article of ordinary consumption he should take steps not merely to procure his revenue but to see to it that the consumer who pays the tax does not pay more by an undue increase in the price of the commodity, than the amount of the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed. I must protest against the idea which has become an accepted axiom of the procedure of the Treasury, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sole duty is to impose a tax without paying any regard to its actual effect in retail prices to the consumer. No Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time, whether in peace of war, has the right to select a particular article as the subject of additional tax without setting up machinery at the same time to protect the consumer against abuse in the shape of undue increase of the price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not meet the point in contrasting the wholesale price in bond in the United States with the price in this country. After all, the question that really matters is not the wholesale price in bond but the retail price to the ordinary consumer. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Member for Swansea has said as to the effect of attempting by an economic process to diminish the consumption of an article like sugar. It is unquestionably in the highest interests of the State to secure the physical interest and development of the people in all possible legitimate ways. This House will be making a profound mistake if, under pressure of needs of the War, it lends countenance to anything which may lower the permanent efficiency and stability of the people. This War will count for something worse than disaster in the ordinary sense if we win it by permanently lowering the physical health of the people of this country. While it is right that the Government should be supported and provided with all the sinews of war which are required, neither

This Clause indicates some compunctious visitation of conscience on the part of those who are generally ready to penalise the moderate drinker, the man who follows the prophet and observes the Evangelistic recommendation of drinking wine for the stomach's sake. I desire to know whether it is intended equally to penalise French Allies and enemy table water. I do not quite understand how that is. If you take table waters as denned, imported into this country, it would look like as if you would affect Appollinaris in the first instance. That is a German water. Then there is Contrexeville, which allays the pangs of gout and is French, and Evian, which is as soft as silk and as mild as milk and is also French. Is it an accident that they are all lumped together under Customs Duty, and is it intended, whether they come from the friendly French or the hostile German, that they should come alike under the Customs Tax? In Sub-section (2) table waters includes any aerated waters and any beverages to be sold or to be kept on sale in bottle. Does bottle include flask and stone jar, because table water used to be imported in stone bottles? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer these questions? I will not detain the Committee a minute longer, except to make this one remark, that if this is to be considered a great victory for the drinkers against teetotalers, it must be remembered that these table waters are properly used for diluting strong drinks, and this tax is paid quite as much by the moderate drinker as by the teetotaler or any other man.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why this Clause has wan- dered out of the Finance (New Duties) Act into this Bill? I remember well that there were no Customs Duties on mineral waters, and with his usual courtesy the right hon. Gentleman explained to me-that everything was covered by Excise-Duty. But here I find a new Clause which' ought to have been in the other measure.

In answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), I would point out that this duty applies to all waters, of whatever sort or kind, that are imported into this country. If these importations are going on of which he speaks, I trust he will give the authorities information, in order that the matter may be dealt with, not by tax, but by the provisions of the law.

Is it a purely temporary tax, or how long is it to continue?

If the tax is in existence where there is importation of waters from countries which are now enemy countries, then will be the proper time for my hon. Friend to raise the question.

After the War, if this tax is continued, French waters will be subject to this duty. That is the point I am on now.

All imported waters are subject to this tax. With regard to a glass, or a jar, or a bottle, the hon. Member will recollect that when the Finance (New Duties) Act was passed earlier in the Session the definition was made that a bottle included a stone jar. In reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), if I may refresh his memory, I think he will see what is the explanation. When the tax on mineral waters was originally proposed it was to be levied by a stamp on the cork or bottle, but that would have had to be put on imported waters as well as upon home-made waters before they could be sold. In the course of the Debate it was decided to substitute a duty on waters, and then it became necessary to have corresponding Customs in regard to the home manufacturer as against the foreign competitor. Therefore, we have put into this Bill the second duty, which apparently was thought not to be necessary until it was occasioned by the alteration suggested in the course of the Debate.

I would like to ask one or two questions of the right hon. Gentleman. It is proposed to place light beers which contain 2 per cent, of proof spirit under this tax because they are made in breweries, while other liquids which are stronger and which are much favoured by the Board of Control are not taxed, and are not made in breweries.

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to an old grievance, and I do not think this is the time or place to raise it.

On the contrary, it is not an old grievance; it is a new grievance. These light beers are now sold, and are very much pushed by the Board of Control, who I do not think know much about the matter.

I do not think, in levying the tax, we should regard competition as between one drink and another.

I beg to move to leave out the words "when required" ["annually, when required"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in cases where such a licence is required under Section six of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916."

I understand there has been a certain amount of suspicion about the Clause as drafted, in case it should give the authorities uncontrolled power to require that licence shall be issued for the sale of table waters and ciders whenever they thought fit. In the Finance (New Duties) Act, passed earlier in the Session, the Commissioners have power to make Regulations under which a licence will be granted, and it is only in connection with those Regulations that a licence can be required.

I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a certain class of people selling table waters. I have letters from my Con- stituents on the matter. There are people who are selling herb beer, the tax on which 1s 4d. a gallon. Herb beer is sold for 6d. a gallon, whereas mineral waters cost 6s. a gallon, and the tax on mineral waters is also 4d. I submit that this is a most unequal tax—4d. on a liquid which is 6d. a gallon, and 4d. on liquids which are 6s. a gallon.

This Clause does not deal at all with the duty on herb beer.

It seems to me that this very small class of people who make herb beer ought to be safeguarded. Fourpence a gallon on herb beer costing 6d. a gallon is so onerous that already 7 per cent, of their business is gone. Those who are affected are a small class of poor people, who have got together a small business in the sale of herb beer, from which they really have their livelihood. They are being very unjustly treated, and very hardly hit by the tax, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly consider whether he can in some way mitigate the tax on herb beer or put on none at all.

As far as I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman is making a speech on the subject of herb beer. That is not in order upon this Clause.

I understand that this is a duty on table waters; however, I have finished now, and I hope the Financial Secretary will give me some reply.

The Clause deals only with table waters, in which herb beer is included, but it does not deal with the duty on herb beer. My hon. and learned Friend asks me to tax herb beer lighter or not at all, but that does not come within this Clause, which simply deals with the licence for making.

I think my hon. and learned Friend has made a good point in mentioning herb beer, but it is important to take generally the question of the Licence Duty of 10s. which is being set up by the Clause. Lemonades and table waters are still being manufactured by people in all parts of the country, and anybody selling these beverages without a licence will be committing an offence, and may be locked up. That is a very-serious grievance, and I think the Government ought to justify their proposal. Is this Licence Duty necessary for protecting their revenue? Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, small people, make a little living by the sale of these beverages, and they are to be suddenly obliged to take out a licence, the Licence Duty being 10s. per annum. I think the matter might very well receive a little more consideration.

If it is in order to go into the whole question of the taxation of these articles which come within the definition of table duties, then there is a good deal more to be said than has already been said during the course of the Debate on this point. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I would point out that he has chosen a rather unfortunate example, because lemonade which is sold by the glass does not come within the definition of table waters at all. It does not pay the tax and no licence is required under this Clause. Under the Finance (New Duties) Act, the authorities are empowered to licence all manufacturers and sellers of articles coming within the definition of table waters, and this Clause limits the amount of the licence to 10s. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment which he has moved, because that makes it perfectly clear that the Commissioners can only require a licence from those they were empowered to require it from under the Bill which we passed the other day. The Clause as it now stands, with that Amendment is, I think, in so far as the tax and licence are advisable, a satisfactory Clause.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how much he is going to get from poor old women who sell lemonade and ginger beer to cyclists. Apart from the question of still lemonade, one sees lots of little cottages where ginger beer and lemonade is sold, and if you make this charge of 10s. en those poor women for selling that refreshment they may be obliged to shut up their tiny shops, and you will force people into patronising public-houses. I suggest that there is no need to impose a Licence Duty on the good woman of the cottage who often sells lemonade and ginger beer.

The difficulty with the hon. Member is simply due to the fact that he comes into this controversy at an old stage, and deals with a question which was amply discussed a few months ago. Let me remind my hon. Friend of exactly what occurred. My right hon. Friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer imposed a duty on mineral waters which was to be collected by a stamp. The whole of the trades concerned came in deputation to my right hon. Friend and myself and begged that it should be done by a tax upon their output. We pointed out that it was difficult to do that, because we felt there were so many manufacturing these waters that we should lose revenue. We warned them, when we made the promise to suit their conditions, that we must ask for a Licence Duty with a small charge, in order that we might know by the application of the Licence Duty exactly where the taxed article was being made. Therefore the imposition of the Licence Duty was part and parcel of the alteration we accepted after argument in this House and outside. All those points about the small seller of still lemonade and the small woman who keeps a ginger-beer shop and the cottage which sells lemonade were brought to our notice and instanced in this House. There is not the slightest intention of asking them to take out a licence, because this licence will only have to be taken out in accordance with Regulations which are going to be laid on the Table of the House. With regard to mineral waters, in no case will a Licence Duty be asked unless the person manufactures them and then sells them. The case of the person who sells without manufacture was only inserted in order to cover the case of cider, where we made a concession to meet the objections of those who represented the position of people who grew apples. In those cases we propose to make Regulations to enable us to collect the duty from the seller and not the manufacturer. I think that is the only case in which we should have to collect from the seller. In no case will anybody be asked to pay a licence who is not liable to duty.

The persons who sell herb beer make it, and therefore you will be putting this 10s. Licence Duty on them. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that case?

May I suggest that the hon. Member is not really concerned about the Licence Duty at all, but what he wants to do is to remove taxation? Why does he not put down a new Clause, when we can debate it as an issue before us and not one which lies behind?

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "a" ["producing a flame "], to insert the words "spark or." The Clause as drafted provides for a charge on any tinder box, tinder lighter, or other mechanical and portable contrivance for producing a flame. It is very much open to doubt whether a tinder lighter which does not produce a flame is taxable at all, and therefore I propose the Amendment to insert the word "spark." I notice that the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) has given notice of an Amendment to exempt electric contrivances for doing exactly the same thing. I do not know exactly what his motive is in doing so, since an electric contrivance is not at all as cheap as a tinder lighter with which say to light a cigar. I suggest that my Amendment is necessary to make it clear that tinder lighters are included.

In the drafting of the Clause the word "spark" was not inserted, simply because we were of the belief then, and are still, that "flame" includes all that is required. In order, however, to be quite sure, I am willing to accept the hon. Member's suggestion and include "spark."

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "flame," to insert the words "other than electric." Is it intended to include articles which are not used for lighting purposes, such as an electric lamp, in which the light burns in a vacuum? I suggest that it must be an open spark or flame. The Clause has been, I think, rather hurriedly drawn up, but I do not suppose it is intended to include those small electric lamps, and therefore some words ought to be inserted to that effect.

I recognise I am in very deep waters in talking about these technical matters, but I am given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman need have no apprehensions on this subject. What we intend is to tax those articles with which you make light and not those things which are light in themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to an electric light which is not, I think, a flame or spark, but if I were to accept his words I should run the risk of excluding those who get a spark or flame by electric aid.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "five shillings," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-three and one-third per cent, ad valorem." The Clause does not indicate what a tinder box or lighter is. The right hon. Gentleman just now expressed himself as being in very deep waters in explaining these matters, and I should have liked to have asked him to have an exhibition of these tinder boxes in the Tea Boom, so that we might see what we arc actually going to tax, as I think we hardly do understand what we are taxing. The House will notice that there is a uniform tax of 5s. I am told many of these things cost—

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me if the change from 5s. to 33⅓ per cent, ad valoreminvolves any extra charge on the subject, because, if so, it would be out of order?

The intention is the opposite, and I believe this proposal would greatly reduce the charge.

No, no!

What I intend to do is to reduce the charge, and I will amend my proposal by the words "whichever is smaller." I am told that some of these tinder boxes are sold at 6d. and 10d., and surely it is not intended to put a 5s. tax on articles of that kind. Some arrangement ought to be made to regulate that the tax is proportionate to the cost of the article, and not prohibitive; otherwise we may be doing an injustice to a number of people, perhaps a small number, and may be depriving them of their means of living, since the imposition of such a heavy tax in proportion to the cost would do away with the manufacture.

If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment I shall be quite willing to withdraw one which I have down on the Paper a little later on. It would be a much fairer way to have an ad valorem duty rather than to put on a duty of 5s. on an article which is going to be sold at retail prices starting at something like 6d. It will mean that a 6d. article, which is not only used for lighting a cigar or pipe, but also, I understand for lighting a fire, is going to be very much prejudiced in comparison with matches, and I think the Committee will agree that the object of the Treasury is that these little articles for making a flame shall not Toe put in a better position than matches. If, therefore, my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, the matches will be taxed much more lightly than this competitive method of making a flame. I do hope he will meet this point, because it seems very arbitrary to put on an article which is sold at such a small price such a large tax as 5s.

I do not think there is anything in what the right hon. Gentleman said as to this being a very difficult or complicated matter. I agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wiles), and with regard to the Amendments standing in my name for other smaller taxes than 5s., I should be quite willing to accept this Amendment of 33⅓ Per cent, tax ad valorem. I think it would be of use to the Committee to know a little of what this industry really consists. So far as the home production is concerned, there are only two firms engaged in it, employing about seventy men, and turning out about 3,000 gross a year. The whole tax the right hon. Gentleman will collect will be about £10,000, on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough). The alternative of putting 5s. on will be that he will get no tax whatever, and the only result will be practically to prohibit the manufacture of anything for lighting a cigar or cigarette except by matches which the Government tax. I do not think that is their intention, and when I add to that the fact that this small industry of tinder lighter manufacture has very largely increased during the War, as almost all these articles are sent out to our troops at the front, I think it quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman cannot want to prohibit entirely the small manufacture of so useful an article. There are a great many of these articles which are more expensive, which produce a flame generally by means of petrol, which, when a button is pressed, lights a lamp. Seven thousand gross of these are used, which means about 1,008,000. They are mostly manufactured abroad, and the right hon. Gentleman's duty on these, which are more expensive articles, generally selling at 1s. or 2s. 6d., will be something like £50,000. I think the Amendment gives a reasonable proportion of tax, both as regards the imported and the home manufactured article, and one which does not act as a prohibition of a very small and perhaps rather useful industry to this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept it.

:.I agree with all my three hon. Friends who have spoken, that this tax is too high. It was not put on for the purpose of obtaining a large revenue, but simply and solely because when we were putting on the Match Tax it was represented to us—and it has been found in other countries to be so—that substitutes for matches ought not to be allowed free of tax. I do not think it would be of very much use to put an ad valoremduty upon them. What we ought to try to do is to tax them on their degree of utility, and not on their value as an article, and I should be very much obliged if my hon. Friends—

made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

We had a shot at 5s., and it is obvious that when an article is to be sold at 9d. that is going to kill the trade in that particular article, for which there is no necessity. We are now busy, my officers at the Customs are busy, discussing this matter with the people who make these things, with a view to trying to agree as to what would be the right scale. I would prefer not to say anything about it to-day, because it is not quite fixed, and I do not want to announce a new rate which might have to be revised or altered later on. I think, however, we must proceed by two rules. I think we must have a rate for articles which contain spirit or petrol, and which are, I think, the more competing articles, and a lower rate for articles which do not contain them. Both these, I promise the Committee, will be very substantially lower than the rate now in the Bill, and if the Committee will be content with that I will move the necessary reduction on the Report stage.

I should like to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes is very very close to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) proposes himself, because, as a matter of fact, the article which contains petrol, and which produces a flame, is the more expensive, to make, and, therefore, sells at a higher price—more than double that of the other. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, therefore, will mean, roughly speaking, a shilling in one case and sixpence in the other, and the Amendment I have on the Paper for specific duties is almost exactly what the right hon. Gentleman indicates it is his intention to introduce.

I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is quite reasonable, and I have no doubt the Committee will agree to it. I hope, however, that on the Report stage there will be a considerable reduction in the duty, because it is evident that this duty cannot produce anything, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he does not want to kill a small industry, which is what would undoubtedly be the effect of continuing a heavy duty of this sort.

May I assume that if it is the case that these lighters are mostly sent to the troops a drawback will be paid on export?

Yes.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "a" ["producing a flame"], to insert the words "spark or."

Has the Government noticed that this Amendment might possibly go much further than they think? The Clause would then read that a tax should be levied on other mechanical contrivances for producing a spark. Mechanical contrivances for producing sparks are required in gas engines, oil engines, and things of that sort, and we should, therefore, be careful. We are not experts in this House, and I should like the trade outside to have an opportunity of considering whether that really would not come within this Clause and whether, while we are intending to tax only things that compete with matches, we are really going to tax an essential part of a gas engine, oil engine, or other things of that kind.

May I point out that the words "and portable" are here? Surely that excludes the kind of article mentioned by the hon Member.

I did not notice that.

I am not quite sure that the words "spark or" would not include a magneto. The very essential of a magneto is that it should produce a spark, and, if that were included, where would motor traction be? I think the right hon. Gentleman should consider between now and the Report stage whether this would not include the spark of a magneto.

There are many conceivable ways in which these very useful little articles might hereafter be used, where you set a thing to work with an electric spark. There is the danger. What it is intended to indicate is where a spark operates in the same way as a match—that is, when it produces combustion—and it would be better not to use the term except with words connecting it with purposes for which a flame might be used.

I think we had better put in the words "spark or," but I quite agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend about the danger of these words, and that they require the closest possible investigation with the assistance of experts. I will see that the magneto of a motor car, or of a portable gas engine, does not come under this tax.

I would appeal to the tight hon. Gentleman to consider the question broadly when he is taking into account the rate of tax, and to ask himself whether it is worth while persevering with it. I think the hon. Baronet opposite made a good point as to what is the danger in this, and I do not think my hon. Friend behind me sufficiently considered Sub-section (2) of the Clause. If there is only a small amount of revenue to be obtained by it, and it is revenue we are out for, surely it would be better to drop the Clause altogether. I will not persevere in moving my own Motion regarding the Clause if my right hon. Friend will consider the whole case in view of these difficulties, and as to whether it is worth having the Clause at all.

I did not want this Clause at all. We only introduced it into this Bill because we were under a pledge to remove objections. It was pointed out that in other countries where they have a Match Tax—they have such a tax in France—a tax of this kind was necessary, and the people interested asked that we should tax these articles when we were taxing matches. We agreed, and I appeal to the House, therefore, in fairness to the methods we used to get through our Match Tax, to support us in this tax.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this will not include electrical or oil lamps for underground? Surely it would include lamps for underground use.

Surely you cannot get a lamp to produce a flame. You can only produce a flame in a lamp by introducing an outside agent.

An electrical lamp?

We have already dealt with that.

It produces a spark.