Tea and Tea Drinking

by Arthur Reade

SIFTING TEA.

The worthy Dean's denunciation of tea-drinking formed the subject of numerous leading articles in the press, followed by letters from correspondents, several of whom referred to the difficulty of finding any satisfactory substitute for the fragrant and refreshing beverage which, during the present century; has come to be regarded almost as a necessary of life in English homes, both rich and poor. One gentleman pathetically describes his feelings on being presented one afternoon in a drawing-room, where he had been in the habit of being served with "at least three cups of supernatural tea," with "a glass brimful of a dim, opaque, greyish-white liquid," which turned out to be cold barley-water.

Admitting that tea-drinking leads to indigestion, the St. James's Gazette points out that "tea-drinking is still, in itself, better than drunkenness; and there is always a chance that the first factor in the fatal series may not lead to the second, nor the second to the third. What numbers of persons of both sexes every one must know who drink tea three times a day—morning, afternoon, and evening—without ever getting drunk at all! Every one, again, must have met with cases in which men have brought themselves to utter grief through the abuse of spirituous liquors; but who ever heard of a man ruining himself or his family through excessive indulgence in tea? The confirmed tea-drinker never commits murder in his cups—never even goes home in a frantic condition to beat his wife. It is certain, on the other hand, that tea drunk in immoderate quantities does not good, but harm; and it is very desirable that, both in drinking and eating, people should on all occasions be temperate. It is difficult, however, to get through existence without stimulants of some kind; and tea is probably as little injurious as any yet discovered. 'Life without stimulants,' as a modern philosopher has remarked, 'would be a dreary waste.'"

Reviewing the discussion, the Lancet doubted whether the abuse of tea-drinking is prevalent in the country, and maintained that hard-worked minds and fatigued bodies are the better for some gentle stimulant that rouses into activity the nerves, and which ministers to animal life and comfort. The editor concluded that the worthy dean's "conclusions are drawn from insufficient premises, which in their turn can scarcely be regarded as scientific truths."

The latest medical contribution to the literature of the question is a lecture on "Coffee and Tea," by Dr. Poore, Vice-Chairman of the Council of the Parkes Museum, given at the Parkes Museum on the 6th of December, 1883. He thus describes the good and bad effects of these luxuries:—

"The peculiar effects of tea and coffee are due to the alkaloid. These effects are of a refreshing character. The circulation of the blood is increased; the elimination of CO₂ by the lungs is heightened. The reflex excitability of the nerve centres is roused, thereby increasing the impressionability of the consumer, and great wakefulness results; it also excites the peristalsis of the intestines. Tea and coffee, then, are stimulants; they rouse the tissues to increased action, make us insensible to fatigue, and enable us to do more work than we otherwise could. The differences between these stimulants and alcoholic stimulants are worth noticing. Tea and coffee keep us awake and attentive; and those who have taken either for the purposes of midnight study, will know how under their influence the receptive powers of the brain seem to be at its maximum. They cause no mental 'elevation,' and do not rouse the imaginative faculties as a glass of wine seems to do. They enable a man to work, and often rob him of sleep, and do not, like a glass of wine, tend to increase the power of sleep after the work has been accomplished. The tannic acid in tea is doubtless one of the causes why it is as a drink so attractive. It is slightly astringent, and clean in the mouth, and does not 'cloy the palate,' an expression for which I can find no scientific equivalent; tannic acid is also one of the dangers and drawbacks of tea. It is largely present in the common teas used by the poor.... Excessive tea-drinkers are more common than excessive coffee-drinkers, because the heavier coffee more easily produces satiety than the lighter tea; and it is not possible for ordinary stomachs to tolerate more than a certain amount of coffee, even when pure, and only a very small amount of the thick, sweet, adulterated stuff which too often passes for coffee in this country.... Tea is more of a pure beverage than coffee, has less dietetic value, and is less stimulating; it is more capable of being used as a pure luxury (it is indeed the tobacco of women), but its great astringency is one reason which makes its excessive use highly undesirable."

The question of the action of tea, as well as of tobacco and other stimulants, has occupied the attention of Professor Mantegazza, an Italian physiologist of high repute. This eminent scholar places tea amongst the nervous foods; and his enthusiasm for it is unbounded. He credits it with the power of dispelling weariness and lessening the annoyances of life. He considers it the greatest friend to the man of letters, enabling him to work without fatigue; an aid to conversation, rendering it pleasant and easy. His own experience of tea is, that it revives drooping intellectual activity; and he regards it the best stimulus to exertion. "Without its aid," he says, "I should be idle." His general conclusions are that it is beneficial to adults, but injurious to children; and he pronounces it one of the greatest blessings of Providence.

Whatever may be urged in favour of tea, it is undeniable that excess is injurious, and that children would be better without it. It contains no strength, and therefore ought to be forbidden to the young. In an inquiry into the sickly condition of the children in many of the cotton factories of Lancashire, Dr. Ferguson, of Bolton, found that children between thirteen and sixteen years of age, who had been brought up on tea or coffee, increased in weight only about four pounds a year, while those fed on milk increased at the rate of about fifteen pounds a year. For this evil the blame rests entirely upon the mothers, who exceed the bounds of moderation in the use of tea. Though doctors differ widely in their views of the action of tea, they all agree that few things are more certain to produce "flatulence in the overworked female" than this beverage. Their views are shared by other authorities. Miss Barnett, speaking at the National Health Society's Exhibition last year, said, "I am constantly preaching against tea, as it is taken by the vast majority of the working women of England. They drink it at every meal, and suffer from indigestion before they come to middle age. They try to get the blackest fluid out of the tea, and in doing so draw out the tannin, which, though it has its virtues, acts upon the coats of the stomach and produces indigestion by middle life."

But the argument that tea shortens the life of every man who drinks it is absurd. "It is said," remarked Wm. Howitt, "that Mithridates could live and flourish on poisons, and, if it is true that tea or coffee is a poison, so do most of us. Wm. Hutton, the shrewd and humorous author of the histories of Birmingham and Derby, and also of a life of himself, scarcely inferior to that of Franklin in lessons of life-wisdom, said that he had been told that coffee was a slow poison, and he added that he had found it very slow, for he had drunk it more than sixty years without any ill effect. My experience of tea, as well as coffee," added Howitt, "has been the same." Howitt's experience is the experience of tens of thousands of people. The moral in this, as in other matters, is that people must judge for themselves whether tea is injurious or beneficial. As Dr. Poore candidly admits, "a properly controlled appetite, or instinct, is as safe a guide in the matters of diet as a physiologist or a moralist."