Tea and Tea Drinking

by Arthur Reade

TEA-TASTING IN CHINA.

It appears that from 1710 to 1810 not fewer than 750,219,016 lbs. of tea were sold at the East India Company's sales, the value of which was 129,804,595l. The duty alone amounted to 104,856,858l. In 1828 the revenue amounted to 3,302,252l. The exclusive right of trading in tea, so long enjoyed by the East India Company, terminated on the 22nd of April, 1834, when an alteration was made in the method of collecting the dues. Under the old system a tax was levied on the value of the tea; but under the new it was levied upon the weight and quality, the duties ranging from 1s. 6d. on Bohea, and 3s. on Pekoe and other kinds.[7]

The transfer did not, however, secure the approval of the tea-dealers, who continued to petition Parliament for a reduction of the duty. A society was formed at Liverpool with this object in view, and in 1846 its officers published a letter addressed to Sir Robert Peel, contending that, as tea was an object of the first importance to the labouring classes, "the duty on it should be such in amount and principle as to induce the greatest consumption." The memorialists argued:—

"That the duties have been imposed without any reference to the encouragement of its consumption; that the quantity required by the public for their wants and comforts has never entered into the consideration of the legislature; that all they have looked to has been to get a certain amount of revenue from tea, treating it, important as it is to the people's sustenance and well-being, as a subject unworthy of consideration, per se, and for their benefit; that it has been taxed from time to time, heavier and heavier, as its consumption increased; so that, looking at the changes which have taken place in these duties, it would appear as if their object had been to check, if not altogether destroy, the use of tea amongst us, as though it were a poisonous or noxious thing, a species of opium, which, on moral and political grounds, ought to be prohibited. The memorialists found, by a return to an order of the House of Commons, dated the 11th of February, 1845, that in 1784 the tax was 12½ per cent.; in 1795 it was raised to 20 per cent.; in 1797 to 20 per cent. under 2s. 6d. per lb., and 30 per cent. at and above that price; in 1798 to 20 and 35 per cent. respectively; in 1800 to 20 and 40 per cent.; in 1801 to 20 and 50 per cent.; in 1803 to 65 and 95 per cent.; in 1806 to 96 per cent. on all prices; and in 1819 to 96 per cent. under 2s. per lb., and 100 per cent. at and above that price, continuing to the termination of the company's charter. In 1834, the trade being thrown open, the duty was attempted to be levied according to a scale which was supposed to mark quality, being 1s. 6d. per lb. on the lowest tea, 2s. 2d. per lb. on the middle, and 3s. per lb. on the finest kinds. This scale was also constructed on the principle of taxing as near as may be the article with an average duty of 100 per cent., but was abandoned in 1836, and succeeded by a uniform duty of 2s. 1d. per lb. until 1840, when the additional 5 per cent. imposed on all Customs duties brought it up to 2s. 2¼d. per lb."

In the following year, 1846, a towns' meeting was held at Liverpool for the purpose of "taking into consideration the measures which should be adopted to procure as speedily as possible a material reduction of the present duty on tea." A resolution was passed declaring the duty of 2s. 2d. exorbitant, impolitic, and oppressive. In supporting a resolution that a reduction of duty would remove inducements to intemperance and thereby diminish crime, an employer of labour felt assured that if the legislature would cheapen tea, coffee, sugar, and soap, it would give the means of prolonging lives instead of shortening them, and keep a man at his own fireside instead of his going to the tavern, with the ten thousand evils in its train. The speaker, however, caused considerable amusement when he expressed the opinion that if the Irish population could get tea at a cheap rate, they would, to a considerable extent, abandon whisky. Put a cup of tea and a glass of whisky side by side, we venture to say that ninety-nine out of every hundred Irishmen would prefer the whisky. "An Irishman," says Dr. Pope, "was requested by a lady to do some work for her, which he performed to her complete satisfaction. 'Pat,' she said, 'I'll treat you.' 'Heaven bless your honour, ma'am,' says Pat. 'What would you prefer? A pint of porter or a tumbler of grog?' 'Well, ma'am,' says Pat, 'I don't wish to be troublesome, but I'll take the one awhilst you're making the other.'" This is, we fear, a type of the average Irishman, whose love of whisky is the greatest blot upon his character.

Notwithstanding the great outcries against the Government duty, the consumption of tea steadily increased, and in 1844 the duty alone amounted to 4,524,193l. There were, it must be admitted, some inequalities in the system of taxation. The question attracted the notice of Mr. Leitch Ritchie (then editor of Chambers's Journal), who suggested that the moral reform and social improvement for which the present age is remarkable have had their basis in—tea. But if Great Britain is so large a consumer of tea, why, he asks, "do crime and ignorance still prevail amongst the body of the people? Because," he answers, "the poorer classes still drink bad tea, imitation tea, or no tea at all. The tea that is now in bond at tenpence pays a duty of two shillings and a penny, while the tea that is sold in bond at several shillings pays no more. Thus the poor are charged at least three times more, according to value, than the rich." An illustration of this anomaly was given by a speaker at a second meeting held at Liverpool in 1848, for the purpose of securing a reduction in the duties. "Tea," says the speaker, "must be considered in a two-fold light, not merely as an article of luxury to some, but as an article of necessity to all classes of her Majesty's subjects. But do all classes procure this necessity on equal terms? No; for though it is in general use with the peer as well as the peasant, we yet find the same duties levied on teas of the lowest as on teas of the highest description."

It was urged by those who defended the policy of the Government that tea was a stimulant, and that therefore it was injurious. "We admit the fact," said the Rev. Dr. Hume, "but we strenuously deny the inference. A stimulant is not necessarily injurious, though the more violent always are. Heat is a stimulant, and so is water in particular circumstances; food is a stimulant; the light of heaven is a stimulant, whether in animal or in vegetable nature, and so is the beaming countenance and kindling heart of a sympathetic friend."

Neither meetings nor memorials, however, seemed to have any influence with the Government; but in 1852 Mr. Disraeli proposed to reduce the duty on tea to 1s. 10d., and ultimately to 1s., the reduction to be spread over six years. This reduction, with other reductions of the dues on shipping and the malt tax, would have involved a loss of more than 3,000,000l., to supply which, he proposed, among other things, to impose the income tax on industrial incomes over 100l. His proposals were, however, strongly opposed by Mr. Gladstone, and rejected by a large majority. When, however, Mr. Gladstone returned to power, in 1853, he proposed the very same reductions which he had when out of office rejected. He proposed to reduce the duty to 1s. 10d. during the following year, and by 3d. a year until the limit of 1s. was reached. Including reduction of other taxes, the loss to the revenue would have amounted to 5,315,000l., which he proposed to meet by renewing the income tax for seven years, extending the stamp duties, and increasing the duty on spirits; but owing to the Crimean War the proposed reduction was not effected. The expenses of this war were so heavy, amounting to 70,000,000l., that the duty on tea was increased 3d. a pound.