"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."
"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 oftheir 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 otherthan 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 atea-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 betemperateand to use less than they had previously."
"The number of members in the London Society on the 12th of April, 1746, was 1939, and the amount oftheir 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 otherthan 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 atea-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 betemperateand 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 hopesof 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 calledtheine, 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 hissenses 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 andCoffee," 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]
A New York magazine, theHerald of Health, is equally unsparing in its attacks on tea-drinking:—"The habit of tea-drinking among women is one of the worst with which the hygienic physician has to contend. Very few women, comparatively, among civilized peoples are free from this vice—for vice it is—and as pronounced in its effects as either whisky or tobacco.... It is a common custom among women who do hard manual labour to depend upon their cup of tea, when they are tired, to rest them, as they say, and thus the wearied nerves are lulled to sleep and the warning voice of nature hushed, that the work may be done and the system taxed to the utmost that it is able to bear without complete exhaustion. Is it any wonder that women once broken down are so hard to restore to health again?
"On women and children its worst consequences fall. To the use of tea may be traced directly most of the prostrating nervous headaches with which so many women are afflicted; also most of the neuralgic and nervous affections. Of course children inherit the tendency to these and similar conditions, and many a puny, emaciated nervous little one is so because its mother was a tea-drunkard, and its whole system has been narcotized from the time its being began."
In England the opposition against tea has never taken an organized form, but a good deal has been said and written on the question. In 1863 or 1864 an Anti-Teapot Society was formed, but not against tea-drinking. It published a quarterly magazine called theAnti-Teapot Review. A correspondent ofNotes and Queriesstated that itwas no enthusiastic wish to convert tea-topers into anything else that called this body into existence; it was rather a desire to oppose and to cast scorn on the narrowness of mind that seems to be encouraged in circles which, by no very violent figure of speech, may be described around a teapot. In other words, he says, the A. T. S. was a combination against modern Pharisaism, and he quotes the following extract from No. 1 of theReview, May, 1864, as proving his point:—
"Many persons either do not, or pretend not to, know what teapotism is. In consequence of this ignorance or affectation we shall, in a few words, try to describe the leading features of the male and female teapot. Teapotism is a magnificent profession, but a very sorry practice! It professes a large-hearted liberality, unbounded piety, and the enunciation of true principles; but its practice is that of a narrow-minded clique, who condemn all who go not with them. Its piety consists in hero-worship and the circulation of illiterate tracts, calculated to attract the strong and to confound the weak; it is bounded on the north by the platform and meeting-house, and on the south by scandal, hassocks and tea, whence the name of teapots, &c."
"Many persons either do not, or pretend not to, know what teapotism is. In consequence of this ignorance or affectation we shall, in a few words, try to describe the leading features of the male and female teapot. Teapotism is a magnificent profession, but a very sorry practice! It professes a large-hearted liberality, unbounded piety, and the enunciation of true principles; but its practice is that of a narrow-minded clique, who condemn all who go not with them. Its piety consists in hero-worship and the circulation of illiterate tracts, calculated to attract the strong and to confound the weak; it is bounded on the north by the platform and meeting-house, and on the south by scandal, hassocks and tea, whence the name of teapots, &c."
The article ends with the assurance that "The society will go on as it began: itwill remain strictly private, enforce the same rules, and show that it is the enemy, not of tea, but of teapots." TheReviewprofessed to be edited by members of the universities, and written only by members of the Anti-Teapot Society of Europe. The qualifications for membership were, to read the rules, to fill up the form of admission to be had in English, French, German, Dutch, and other languages; to be nominated and seconded by any two officers; "the latter (sic) wholesome rule was introduced so that inquisitive people might be prevented from joining the society out of sheer curiosity." The society appears to have made no converts, and had but a very short existence.
Tea-parties have always been popular institutions among Dissenting bodies, and it is therefore not surprising to find ministers taking part in meetings advocating a reduction of the tea duties. In 1848 the Rev. Dr. Hume, attending a meeting in Liverpool for this purpose, warmly defended tea, on the ground of health, and quoted with great satisfaction the evidence of Dr. Sigmond, given before the Committee of the House ofCommons. Asked what had been the result of the medical inquiries into the effect of tea upon the human frame, Doctor Sigmond replied, "I think it is of great importance in the prevention of skin disease, in comparison with any fluid we have been in the habit of drinking in former years, and also in removing glandular affections. I think scrofula has very much diminished in this country since tea has been so largely used. To those classes of society who are not of labouring habits, but who are of sedentary habits, and exercise the mind a good deal, tea is of great importance."
On the other hand, a famous physician of our time takes an entirely opposite view of the question. At the Sanitary Congress last year Dr. Richardson delivered an address on "Felicity as a Sanitary Research," and charged tea with being a promoter of infelicity. "As a rule," he says, "all agents which stimulate—that is to say, relax—the arterial tension, and so allow the blood a freer course through the organs, promote for a time felicity, but in the reaction leave depression. The alkaloid in tea, theine, has thiseffect. It causes a short and slight felicity. It causes in a large number of persons a long and severe and even painful sadness. There are many who never knew a day of felicity, owing to this one destroying cause. In our poorer districts, amongst the poor women of our industrial populations, our spinning, our stocking-weaving women, the misery incident to their lot is often doubled by this one agent."
The Dean of Bangor is the latest clerical opponent of tea-drinking. Speaking at a meeting held to further the establishment of courses of instruction in practical cookery in the elementary schools, he said that if he had his own way there would be much less tea-drinking among people of all classes. Oatmeal and milk produced strong, hearty, good-tempered men and women; whereas excessive tea-drinking created a generation of nervous, discontented people, who were for ever complaining of the existing order of the universe, scolding their neighbours, and sighing after the impossible. Good cooking would, he firmly believed, enable them to take far higher and more correct views ofexistence. In fact, he suspected that too much tea-drinking, by destroying the calmness of the nerves, was acting as a dangerous revolutionary force among us. Tea-drinking, renewed three or four times a day, made men and women feel weak, and the result was that the tea-kettle went before the gin-bottle, and the physical and nervous weakness, that had its origin in the bad cookery of an ignorant wife, ended in ruin, intemperance, and disease.
SIFTING TEA.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, theSt. James's Gazettepoints 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 getthrough 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, theLancetdoubted 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 arefreshingcharacter. The circulation of the blood is increased; the elimination ofCO2by 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 peculiar effects of tea and coffee are due to the alkaloid. These effects are of arefreshingcharacter. The circulation of the blood is increased; the elimination ofCO2by 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 tobe 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 itsvirtues, 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."
FOOTNOTES:[5]"It is not safe, in regard to the action of a drug on animals, to conclude that its effect will be the same on men. For instance, belladonna, which is a deadly poison for men, does not hurt rabbits."—Professor Rolleston.[6]There may be some truth in this statement. "I do not remember any mention of tea in Wycherley, but in Congreve's 'Double Dealer' (Act 1, Scene 1, p. 175 a), the scene is laid at Lord Touchwood's house; and when Careless inquires what has become of the ladies, just after dinner, Mellefont replies, "Why, they are at the end of the gallery, retired to tea and scandal, according to their ancient custom.""—Buckle, Common-Place Book.
[5]"It is not safe, in regard to the action of a drug on animals, to conclude that its effect will be the same on men. For instance, belladonna, which is a deadly poison for men, does not hurt rabbits."—Professor Rolleston.
[5]"It is not safe, in regard to the action of a drug on animals, to conclude that its effect will be the same on men. For instance, belladonna, which is a deadly poison for men, does not hurt rabbits."—Professor Rolleston.
[6]There may be some truth in this statement. "I do not remember any mention of tea in Wycherley, but in Congreve's 'Double Dealer' (Act 1, Scene 1, p. 175 a), the scene is laid at Lord Touchwood's house; and when Careless inquires what has become of the ladies, just after dinner, Mellefont replies, "Why, they are at the end of the gallery, retired to tea and scandal, according to their ancient custom.""—Buckle, Common-Place Book.
[6]There may be some truth in this statement. "I do not remember any mention of tea in Wycherley, but in Congreve's 'Double Dealer' (Act 1, Scene 1, p. 175 a), the scene is laid at Lord Touchwood's house; and when Careless inquires what has become of the ladies, just after dinner, Mellefont replies, "Why, they are at the end of the gallery, retired to tea and scandal, according to their ancient custom.""—Buckle, Common-Place Book.
Tea heavily taxed—How it was adulterated in the "Good Old Times"—Efforts to secure a reduction in the duty—Why crime and ignorance prevail—Mr. Disraeli's proposal to reduce the duty on tea, opposed by Mr. Gladstone—Mr. Gladstone's legislation—The Chancellor of the Exchequer memorialized to reduce the duty on Indian tea—The annual expenditure on tea—Professor Leoni Levi's estimate of its consumption by the working classes.
Tea heavily taxed—How it was adulterated in the "Good Old Times"—Efforts to secure a reduction in the duty—Why crime and ignorance prevail—Mr. Disraeli's proposal to reduce the duty on tea, opposed by Mr. Gladstone—Mr. Gladstone's legislation—The Chancellor of the Exchequer memorialized to reduce the duty on Indian tea—The annual expenditure on tea—Professor Leoni Levi's estimate of its consumption by the working classes.
Tea had not been in use many years before the government discovered in it a valuable means of replenishing the national exchequer. Accordingly they passed a law, in 1660, imposing a duty of eightpence per gallon on all tea made and sold in coffee-houses, which were visited twice daily by officers. It would occupy too much space to describe subsequent legislation, but the subject appears attimes to have been almost as perplexing as the liquor traffic to the various governments.
The tea duties have, however, always been excessively heavy, and it is therefore not surprising that a great deal of smuggling was carried on in the "Good Old Times," and that deceptions were practised to a very large extent by unscrupulous tea-dealers. Parliament at last interfered. In the reign of George II. an Act of Parliament recites that "several ill-disposed persons do frequently fabricate, dye, or manufacture very great quantities of sloe-leaves, liquorice-leaves, and the leaves of tea that have before been used, or the leaves of other trees, shrubs, or plants, in imitation of tea, and do likewise mix, colour, stain and dye such leaves with terra japonica, sugar, molasses, clay, logwood and with other ingredients, and do sell and vend the same as real tea, to the prejudice of the health of his Majesty's subjects, the diminution of his revenue, and to the ruin of the fair trader." The Act then declares, "that the dealer in and seller of such sophisticated teas shall forfeit thesum of ten pounds for every pound-weight." In a report of the Committee of the House of Commons, in 1783, it is stated that "the quantity of fictitious tea annually manufactured from sloe, liquorice, and ash-tree leaves, in different parts of England, to be mixed with genuine teas, is computed at four millions of pounds, and that at a time when the whole quantity of genuine tea sold by the East India Company did not exceed more than six millions of pounds annually." The Act does not seem, however, to have done much to check the evil, for in the year 1828 the existence of several tea manufactories was disclosed, the penalties for defrauding the revenue amounting in one case to 840l.It is impossible to estimate the amount of smuggled tea consumed, but the official accounts indicate a large consumption.
TEA-TASTING IN CHINA.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 therevenue 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'scharter. 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."
"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'scharter. 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 thousandevils 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 attractedthe notice of Mr. Leitch Ritchie (then editor ofChambers'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 asthe 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 theincome 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.
When the war was over, Mr. Gladstone desired that the added duties on tea, sugar, and other necessaries of life, should be taken off; but on the 6th of March, 1857, "the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Lewis, announced a modification ofthe Budget resolutions so far as the tea duties were concerned, and proposed that the amount of the tax, which he had arranged for three years, should be applicable for one year only. Mr. Gladstone moved an amendment to the effect that after April 5, 1857, the duty should be 1s.3d., and after the 5th of April, 1858, 1s.The amendment was negatived by 187 to 125, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's resolution, fixing the duty at 1s.5d.was carried." In 1865 the duty was reduced to 6d.under Mr. Gladstone's Government, and at this figure it remains. But the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently been called to the disadvantage under which the Indian tea-industry is placed by the imposition of the English Customs duty of 6d.per lb. on all tea imports, and the object of the memorialists was to induce him to consider the expediency of abolishing or modifying this duty when framing his financial budget. It was pointed out that the Indian tea-industry is greatly in want of such relief, as evidenced by recent Calcutta reports showing the market value of the shares of the joint-stock tea companies.
Out of a total of 116 companies forty-six only gave any dividend on the crop of 1882, and of these forty-six only twenty paid over five per cent. Of the seventy which gave no dividend not a few have paid nothing for several years, and many are struggling on under the incubus of borrowed capital, with the hope of improvement in the markets, the cause of this depression being directly traceable to the heavy fall in prices during the last few years. The opinion was expressed that if the trade could be relieved of the present heavy tax of from 50 to 100 per cent. on the value, it might be fairly assumed that a reduction of, say, 4d.per lb. to the consumer would lead to a large increase in the consumption, and leave a return of the remaining 2d.per lb. more to the producer, which would in many cases prove a working profit to gardens now being carried on at a loss.
Reference was also made to the argument, of which doubtless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware, that inasmuch as the average value of Indian teas is higher than that of China teas, the present dutyweighs more heavily on the latter, and consequently that its abolition would deprive the Indian importer of a certain amount of protection; but at the same time the opinion was expressed that a general reduction of prices to the consumer all round would induce on the part of the public a more general preference for the superior quality of the Indian produce, and that the increased demand for it thereby engendered would more than counterbalance any loss of protection which might be sustained.
As will be seen from the following table of the duties, the consumers of tea contribute very largely to the revenue of the country:—
£.18743,248,44618753,568,63418763,706,83118773,723,14718784,002,21118794,162,22118803,698,33818813,865,72018823,974,48118834,230,341—————38,180,376
The annual expenditure on tea amounts toabout 11,000,000l.Large as this amount appears, it sinks into insignificance when compared with the expenditure upon intoxicating drinks. During the last year it amounted to no less than 125,477,275l.There are few who would regret to see this formidable amount reduced to a fourth of its present dimensions; and no one surely will deny that if everybody drank tea, instead of alcoholic drinks, a great reform in the habits of the people would take place. Drunkenness, and its attendant evil, pauperism, would cease; plenty would take the place of poverty, joy for sadness, health for sickness; and happiness would reign throughout the land.
Reference has already been made to the fact that England stands next to China as the greatest tea-drinking nation; and it appears that the working classes consume the largest proportion of tea imported. Professor Leoni Levi compiled in 1873 an elaborate estimate of the amount of taxation falling on the working classes of the United Kingdom; and in his report he shows that from consumption of tea alone they contributed 2,200,000l.to the revenue, as against900,000l.by the middle and upper classes. At the present time, however, the working classes contribute over 3,000,000l.as their proportion of the duty upon tea. A clearer light is thrown upon their contributions to the national exchequer by the following table showing the proportion for every pound of taxes paid from each item:—
As falling on the Working Classes.As falling on the Middle and Upper Classes.s.d.s.d.Spirits75Local taxes, land, houses, &c.70Malt30Stamps33Tobacco30Income-tax30Local taxes and houses29Spirits110Tea15Malt09Sugar10Tobacco09Licences09Sugar and tea10Other taxes08Land and houses010Wine07Other taxes10————————Total £100Total £100
The Professor classes tea as a necessary, but confesses that it is difficult to define whether certain articles in daily use are necessaries or luxuries. Many articles, he points out, such as white bread, tea, sugar, which not long ago were considered luxuries, are now, with the improved condition of thepeople, regarded as absolute necessaries. He refers, in particular, to the effect of indirect taxes in greatly enhancing the cost of the taxed article to the consumer. "The wholesale import price of tea, for example, may be 1s.a pound, and upon this there is 6d.duty. But immediately as it passes from the importer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the retailer, the whole price, duty paid, is charged first with ten, and then with thirty per cent. to meet expenses and profits of trade, whereby the retail price is increased probably from 2s.to 3s.6d.or 4s.per lb. This trading, therefore, constitutes so much extra tax, and it is a tax which the working classes pay to the middle and higher classes, through whose hands such articles pass." Whether we shall ever have a free breakfast-table, it is impossible to say; but if the tax on tea were abolished, it is obvious that it would be necessary to impose some other tax, probably even more objectionable.