Aug. 1, 1902.] 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 
109 
THE TEA DUTY BEFORE THE HOUSE 
OF COMMONS. 
Tlie sifctins; of TiiesiLay, J.ine 10th, was resumed 
at 9 o'clock, On Clause 2 (Uufy on Tea), Mr 
Fi YNN (Cork N) moverl an aniendinenfc to exempt 
Ireland from the duty. The iluty on tea tell on 
the poorer country with (greater severity than on 
the rici.er ; indeed, tea and maize formed more 
than 50 per cent of the expenditure of the poorest 
families in Ireland. He also claimeil that the ex- 
emption he asked for would tend to equalise the 
balance between direct and indirect taxation as 
rejrards the sister isle. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 
his experience in this country was that the poor 
were more particular about the kind of tea they 
boui,'ht than other people, and probably it was the 
same in Ireland. (Hear, hear,) He could not 
assent to the suggestion of the hon. member, 
and as he was engaged in raisins? taxation he 
regretted to say he must oppose the amendment. 
He dill not think that the Budget resolutions had 
any bearing on the subject of the financial lela- 
tions between the two countries. 
Mr T W Russell said that he did not under- 
stand that the question of the financial relations 
had been raised by the hon. member opposite. So 
far as he was concerned he was pledged to vote for 
any money that the Government required for the 
war. He would personally be glad to vote for the 
abolition of the tea duty all over tiie country, but 
if his hon. friend wenc to a division he should be 
compelled to vote against him. , 
Sir T Esmonue (Wexford, N.) thought 
that under the special circumstances the burden 
on Ireland should be reduced. 
Colonel LocKWOOD (Essex, Epping) said that 
though there was no doubt that many on his side 
of the House had, generally speaking not n;ucli 
sympathy with tiie views expre:-sed by hon. mem- 
bers from Ireland opposite, they had during the 
last three or four nights felt considerable sympathy 
with the poor peo|)le in Irelauil who would un- 
doubtedly suffer from the incidence of this tax. 
He thought, however, that the hon. member for 
North Cork would see that it would be impossible 
to draw a line of demarcation between England 
and Ireland in this matter. 
The Committee divided, and there voted — 
For the amendment ... 69 
Aijainst ... ... 138 
Majority against ... — 69 
Mr Channing proposed an amendment 
KKDOCINO THE DUTV ON TEA TO 4D. PER LE. 
He said that tigures furnished to him by one of the 
ablest co-operators in the country showed that an 
enormous contribution, as expressed iu terms of 
income-tax, was made by the working classes 
towards the public revenue in respect of bread- 
stuff's, tea, sugar and tobacco. One working class 
budget of 35s a week showed a total indirect 
contributioi. ad valorem on these four articles 
of 19u in the pound, expressed as income ta.x ; in 
another case the amount was 2f-8d in the pound. 
He contended that there was a strong case for 
making a reduction in the tea duty. 
The CHANCliLLOE of the EXCHEQUER 
tliorght there could be no question that, having 
regaid to the expenditure ot the year, they must 
retain the taxes as I hey stood last year. Taking the 
whole of the country, iie could not; see what possi- 
ble grounds, there were for this amendment. He 
passed by what the hon. member said a.^ to the 
sugar duties', bub with regard to the tea duties 
there had been a very considerable yield in the p'j.Ht 
year. This was very clear proof that the great bulk 
of the population continued to indulge in tea even 
to a greater extent than before. And why? Be- 
cause, although the tax had increased, the price of 
tea had fallen. He considered that the proposal of 
the hon. member to reduce the tea duty was un- 
justifiable. 
Mr E Robertson (Dundee) said the great objec- 
tion which they had to this kind of tax was that 
it fell upon a large section of the community who 
were unable to bear any burden at all. 
Mr McKenna (Monmouthshire, N.) said he 
should vote for the reduction of every indirect 
tax until they had absorbed the surplus of 
£6,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
possessed, and the tax on tea should lind a first 
place among the taxes to be reduced. 
Mr Broadhurst sujjported the amendment. 
Mr Hemphill (Tyrone, M.) said there was no 
tax which pressed more unfairly upon poor 
people in Ireland than the tea tax. Tea was 
becoming one of the first necessaries of life 
among tlie poorest people in Ireland. Where for- 
merly potatoes and milk were consumed, the fare 
in many Irish dwellin.f^s wasnow grilled cake, made 
of Indian corn, supplemented by tea. Equality of 
taxation meant equality of sacrifice. It was 
absurd to talk of maintenance of the proportion 
of direct and indirect taxation. The first duty 
of every Government was to see that none of 
the inhabitants of their country were dying of 
starvation, and if they taxed the first necessaries 
of life this involved more or less starvation, or 
the workhouse as the alternative of starvation. 
There was no necessity for this taxation since 
the announcement of peace. The first duty of 
the Chancellor ot the Exchequer when peace 
was assured was not to repay tbe Sinking Fund, 
but to relieve the poor of these burdens on the 
necessities of lite. 
Mr Bryan Koberts (Carnarvonshire, Eifion) 
could not support the amendment. The tax 
reached a class which but few of the other taxes 
reached — the Nonconformist teetotallers. (Laugh- 
ter.) These gentlenien ought not to escape any 
of the burden of war taxation. This tax was 
different from the corn tax inasmuch as it had no 
taint of protection about it. 
Mr G White (Norfolk, N. W.) protested 
against the tax on behalf of the agricultural 
labourers. In his opinion an undue burden of 
taxation had been placed on their shoulders as a 
result of the war. 
Mr Channing complained that the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer had evaded the point established 
by the trustworthy figures he had given, that 
the portion of this tax paid by the poorer classes 
was far in excess of that paid by the wealthier 
classes. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would nob 
admit that it was so, but whether it was so or nob 
there was no question that the amount paid to the 
revenue by indirect taxation was far less than the 
amount paid by direct taxation. At the present 
time there was no groi'.nd for this reduction. 
Mr. TP O'Connor (Liverpool, Scotland) re- 
garded this duty as one of the worst and most 
illogical forms of taxation, and especially op- 
pressive to the poorer classes. Accepting the 
principle that taxation should be spread over all 
