TEA DUTY.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18406, 12 June 1925, Page 9

TEA DUTY.

REDUCTION REJECTED.

CHANCELLOR AND PREFERENCE

(bt cable—priss association—corißiOHT, (Stdket "Sck" Sebvics.)

LONDON, J»n» 10

In tho House of Commons Mr Winston Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer), opposing a Labour proposal for a penny reduction in the tea duty, pointed out that this' duty had thrice been reduced .since the war and was now lower than before the war. Tea '.vas being increasingly drunk.

The proposal, which, it was stated, would cost £4,800,000, was rejected by 271 votes to 149.

The Liberals invited Mr Churchill to defend Imperial Preference in regard to tho tea duty. . Mr Churchill retorted that when tho Dominions camo to the aid of the Mother Country in the war time it created a universal feeiing in favour of Imperial Preference. The original Chamberlain scheme was based fundamentally on the taxation of bread and meat. Long years of political warfare proved that unacceptable, but a considerable proportion of all the parties endorsed tho principle of drawing the Empire together by preference which did not affect the cost of living. Eighty-four per cent, of Great- Britain's tea was produced in tho Empire, therefore preference contributed to cheapening an article which the masses consumed.

Mr Churchill, replying to Sir John Simon as to whether, apart from Mr Baldwin's pledge, he was prepared to introduce a general tariff, said that he was opposed to it. "I fought the general tariff at the 1923 election," said Mr Churchill, "but it is because the principle of a general tariff is no longer part of the party's programme that I consider 1 am perfectly: free to examine these subsidiary propositions without raising the issues of protection or v free trade." "Nobody understanding tho language could eay that the present Protectionist proposals did not contravene Mr Baldwin's pledge," said Mr Philip'Snowden. "Labour regarded the duties as only contemporary with the present Government's lifetime."

Mr Snowden wondered how long the Government would suffer the indignity of refusing tho challenge of an election on this clear issue.