Tea and Tea Drinking

by Arthur Reade

This worthy benefactor of his species contends that tea is a slow but sure poison, and that it is "not less destructive to the animal economy than opium, or some other drugs which we have at present learned to avoid with more caution." He does not deny that tea is "useful as physic," but lays down the following propositions, which he endeavours to prove. First, that tea may attenuate the blood to any degree necessary to the production of any disease, which may arise from too thin a state of the blood. Secondly, that tea may depauper the blood, or waste the spirits, to any degree necessary to produce any disease, which may arise from too poor a blood. Third, that tea may bring on any degree whatsoever of a plethora necessary to the production of any disease, which may arise from a plethoric state of body. From an experiment upon a dog the author concludes that "tea abounds with a lixiviate salt, by whose assistance it attenuates the blood." The author draws some terrible pictures of the evils of tea-drinking, but does not presume to dictate how his readers should act. "Whether or not we ought to abandon the use of what may possibly be of so vast injury to us, I leave to every reasonable man to judge, having myself done the duty of a man and Christian in warning them of what dangers they may fall into."

On the other hand, Thomas Frost, M.D., wrote a "Discourse on Tea, with Plain and Useful Rules for Gouty People," in 1750. In this he contended that,—

"A moderate use of tea of a due strength seems better adapted to the fair sex than men, for they, naturally being of a more lax and delicate make, are more liable to a fulness of blood and juices; as also because they have less exercise or head-labours, than which nothing braces better, or gives the fibres a greater springiness; and because they are less accustomed to drink wine, whose astringency corrugates the fibres, and enables the vessels to act with greater briskness and force, so in some measure answers the end of the labour."

He holds that tea in a dietetic point of view seems in general not only harmless, but very useful, but considers it impossible to say "beforehand with what healthy persons tea will disagree, till they have used it; where it disagrees, it should immediately be left off, for there is no altering or compelling a constitution. However, where it agrees, it excels all other vegetables, foreign or domestic, for preventing sleepiness, drowsiness, or dulness, and taking off weariness or fatigue, raising the spirits safely, corroborating the memory, strengthening the judgment, quickening the invention, &c.; but then it should be drank moderately, and in the afternoon chiefly, and not made too habitual."

John Wesley, a few years later, attacked the use of tea. In 1748 he published a small tract, "Letter to a Friend concerning Tea," in which he accused tea of impairing digestion, unstringing the nerves, involving great and useless expense, and in his own case, and that of others, inducing symptoms of paralysis. But, in the first instance, he preached against tea, not because he thought it injurious, but because he wanted money. The whole of the London Methodists were at that time very poor. The Rev. L. Tyerman, in his "Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley," says,—

"The number of members in the London Society on the 12th of April, 1746, was 1939, and the amount of their quarterly contributions 113l. 9s., upon an average fourteenpence per member. Considering the high price of money, and that nearly the whole of the London Methodists were extremely poor, the amount subscribed was highly creditable. Wesley also believed its use to be injurious. He tells us that when he first went to Oxford, with an exceedingly good constitution, and being otherwise in health, he was somewhat surprised at certain symptoms of a paralytic disorder. His hand shook, especially after breakfast; but he soon observed that if for two or three days he intermitted drinking tea, the shaking ceased. Upon inquiry, he found tea had the same effect upon others, and particularly on persons whose nerves were weak. This led him to lessen the quantity he took, and to drink it weaker; but still for above six and twenty years he was more or less subject to the same disorder. In July, 1746, he began to observe that abundance of the people of London were similarly affected; some of them having their nerves unstrung, and their bodily strength decayed. He asked them if they were hard drinkers; they replied, 'No, indeed, we drink scarce anything but a little tea morning and night!' ... Having set the example (of abstinence from tea) Wesley recommended the same abstinence to a few of his preachers; and a week later to above a hundred of his people, whom he believed to be strong in faith, all of whom, with two or three exceptions, resolved by the grace of God to make the trial without delay. In a short time he proposed it to the whole society. Objections rose in abundance. Some said, 'Tea is not unwholesome at all.' To these he replied that many eminent physicians had declared it was, and that, if frequently used by those of weak nerves, it is no other than a slow poison. Others said, 'Tea is not unwholesome to me; why then should I leave it off?' Wesley answered, 'To give an example to those to whom it is undeniably prejudicial, and to have the more wherewith to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked.' Others said, 'It helps my health, nothing else will agree with me.' To such Wesley's caustic reply was, 'I suppose your body is much of the same kind with that of your grandmother, and do you think nothing else agreed with her, or with any of her progenitors? What poor, puling, sickly things must all the English then have been till within these hundred years! Besides, if, in fact, nothing else will agree with you—if tea has already weakened your stomach, and impaired your digestion to such a degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware. You have need to abhor it as deadly poison, and to renounce it from this very hour.' What was the result of Wesley's attempt to form a tea-total society? We can hardly tell, except that he himself abstained from tea for the next twelve years, until Dr. Fothergill ordered him to resume its use. Charles Wesley began to abstain, but how long his abstinence lasted we are not informed. About 100 of the London Methodists followed the example of their leader; and, besides these, a large number of others began to be temperate and to use less than they had previously."

"This was, to say the least," adds Mr. Tyerman, "an amusing episode in Wesley's laborious life. All must give him credit for the best and most benevolent intentions, and it is right to add that, ten days after his proposal was submitted to the London Society, he had collected among his friends thirty pounds for a lending stock, and that this was soon made up to fifty, by means of which, before the year was ended, above 250 destitute persons had received acceptable relief."

The most noteworthy opponent after Wesley was Jonas Hanway, who, in 1756, wrote a bulky volume under the title of "A Journal of Eight Days' Journey from Portsmouth to Kingston-upon-Thames, to which is added an Essay on Tea, considered as Pernicious to Health, obstructing Industry, and impoverishing the Nation." The effects of tea-drinking formed the subject of Dr. Lettsom's inaugural thesis, when he sought the medical doctorate of the University of Leyden in 1767. He accused tea of inducing "excess in spirituous liquors, by reason of the weakness and debility of the system brought on by the daily habit of drinking tea, seeking a temporary relief in some cordial; of producing in some excruciating pains about the stomach, involuntary trembling and fluttering of the nerves, destruction of half your teeth at the age of twenty, without any hopes of getting new ones, depression, loss of memory, tremblings and symptoms of paralysis; and of bringing on a gradual debility and impoverished condition of the entire system."

Tea contains an active principle called theine, which, according to Dr. Sinclair, was discovered so recently as 1827. Adopting one of the methods of the opponents of tobacco, the enemies of tea conclude it to be a deadly poison from its effect upon animals. A New York dentist is reported to have boiled down a pound of young Hyson tea from a quart to half a pint, ten drops of which killed a rabbit three months old; and when boiled down to one gill, eight drops killed a cat of the same age in a few minutes. "Think of it!" exclaims an opponent of tea, "most persons who drink tea use not less than a pound in three months, and yet a pound of Hyson tea contains poison enough to kill, according to the above experiment, more than 17,000 rabbits, or nearly 200 a day! and if boiled down to a gill, it contains poison enough to kill 10,860 cats in the same space of time! How can any one in his senses believe that any human being can take poison enough into the stomach in one day to kill 185 rabbits and not suffer from it?—or that the uses of this poison can be continued from day to day without injury to health and life?"[5]

The Americans appear the most energetic in their opposition to tea. An organization called the "American Health and Temperance Association" was formed in 1879 against tobacco, tea, and coffee; and, according to one of its publications, has a membership of more than 10,000. It believes that more harm is done at the present time by tobacco, tea, and coffee, than by all forms of alcoholic drinks combined, and "the tee-total pledge of the association requires abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, opium, and all other narcotics and stimulants." The "Good Health Publishing Company," at Battle Creek, also issues tracts on the "Evil Effects of the Use of Tea and Coffee," in which it is contended that these beverages waste vital force, and injure digestion and the nervous system; and that they irritate the temper, and encourage gossip and scandal.[6]