July i, 1882.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 



33 



MR. GLADSTONE DOING A MEASURE OP 

 JUSTICE TO- COFFEE. 

 We are able this day to quote, from the Price 

 Current of Messrs. H. Pasteur & Co., the text of 

 the resolutions forbidding the adulteration of coffee 

 with any substance except chicory, which the Prime 

 Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced 

 in his Budget speech as decided on, and we quote 

 that portion of the Financial Exposition which re- 

 ferred to the revenue derived from alcoholic and non- 

 alcoholic drinks. The case of coffee in itself, but 

 especially as compared with tea, — the one left open 

 to adulteration which indeed was invited by a series 

 of Treasury Minutes ; while the other was stringently 

 j '[ected — could not but force itself on Mr. Glad- 

 . .uiie's attention. But we cannot help tliinkiug th.it 

 the action of the right hon. gentleman was largely 

 influenced by the representations made to his govern- 

 ment by persons interested in the coffee industry 

 and trade, cuhninating in tlie Memorial of Feb. 

 6tli, signed most numerously and influentially. 

 The gi-atitude of the coffee plautei-s of Ceylon as 

 well as that of coffee planters everywhere is due to 

 Mr. Thomas Dickson for his zealous efforts, and veiy 

 especially to Mr. H. Pasteur for the convincing 

 figures he prepared and argued from. He comiiiled 

 a statement shewing the consumption of coffee in 

 Bi-itaiu in'every year from 1842 to 18SI, and shewed that 



"Wliilst in 1S54, with a duty of 3d per lb., 37,472,000 lb. 

 were consumed in tliis country, in 1871, with the .same 

 duty and with a population which had increased by some 

 5 or 6 millions, the consumption fell to 31,000,000 li)., 

 whilst in 18S1, with a duty reduced by one-half, i.e. to 

 14s. per cwt., and a population gi'eater than in 187 1 

 by 3,'100,000, the con.sumption was was not more thtai 

 31,943,000 lb. 



He went on to affirm that 



This decrease in the use of one of the best and most 

 wholesome of bevetages, the consumption of which, in 

 every other counti-y of Eiurope and in the United States 

 has increased enormously and goes, on increasing yc;a' 

 by year, is the direct result of a system' of fraud and 

 aiUilteration, wliich has been carried on, and is growing 

 steadily, as it were, under the tender care and solicit- 

 ude of the British Government, who from time to time 

 revise the regulations relating to the .sale of coffee and 

 the various cheap mixtures with wliich it is adulterated, 

 80 that the ingenious importer or mauufactmer of grou)id 

 and roasted acorns, or carrots, or any other nasty com- 

 pounds, may have full scope for the exercise of bis 

 indu.stry. (I do not name chicory, which seems to have 

 become an almost too respectable substitute, judging by 

 the fact that even the consumption of cliicory has been 

 less in 1881 than in 1880.) I do not think any one. 

 will call the above statement either exaggerated or highly 

 colored, who wUl take the trouble to glance at the 

 Treasury orders, issued from time to time on the sub- 

 ject, and which are enumerated in the last column of 

 the tabular statement on the first page. 



He, naturally enough (his justification being their- 

 own extraordinary proceedings ) stated that it looked 

 as if the Treasury and Excise had taken pains to 

 find means to check and prevent the sale of cofice 

 for consumption in Britain, by encouraging not merely 

 chicory gi-owers but preparers of date powder and 

 all possible descriptions of trash which were allowed 

 to be sold as coflee. Mi-. Pasteur very naturally 

 and fairly asked 



Is there any good reason why the same regulations, 

 which are considered fair and necessary to protect 



the revenue from the tea duty, should not be applic- 

 able also to coffee y Why should tea be protected 

 by legislation against adiUteration and not coffee alsui* 

 Is it too late to bring the subject again under the 

 consideration of Government? Surely the coffee- 

 growing British colonies or possessions are 'as deeply 

 intereslcd in tins question as the traders in tliis country; 

 their representatives and the Plauters' Associations, should 

 not rest until they have succeeded in obtaining common 

 justice and fair play for one of their most valuable and 

 important productions. 



This was in January. In February, Mr. Pasteur 

 followed up his fii-at attack by another specially 

 dii-eoted against the astounding Treasury order which 

 positively invited the miportation of all possible sub- j 

 stitutes for and adulterants o? coffee. Mr. Pastern- 

 wrote : — 



To state that coffee is one of the best aud most us< fu 

 of beverages, and that its use ought to be eucom-aged on 

 economical as well as sanitary and moral grounds, is to 

 repeat a truism. It is esteemed as such, and its use encour- 

 aged in all countries, s.ave oue, and its consumption is 

 steadily iucreasmg everywhere except in Great Britain. In 

 America the consumption is at the rate of over 8 lb. per 

 head per annum ; in Germany, with a duty of 21s per cwt. 

 it is 5 lb. per head ; in France, with a duty of 60s per cwt., 

 it is 4 lb, per head. In England it was nearly 2 lb. per head in 

 1847 with a duty of 36s per cwt., but now, with a duty of 

 14s per cwt., it is less than 1 tb. per head, aud yet we impi.rt 

 annually some 70,000 tons of coffee or five times the quautity 

 consumed. The reason of the growing disfavour for the 

 article is .-ibfeli/ and entirdi/ owing to the wholesale system 

 of adulteration which flourishes under the regulations per- 

 mitting the sale of, and since the 20th January, the import- 

 ation of any kind of st<iff mixed in ani/ proportion with 

 coffee. That the regulations hitherto in force did not 

 protect the revenue is amply proved by facts ; the duty on 

 coffee yielded £216.800 in 1879, £203,500 in 1880, .and 

 £199,600 iu ISSI; and the aggregate received in ISSl for 

 duty ou coffee aud chicory is actually less by some £4,000 

 than the amount received in 1880. Do the lords of the 

 Ti-easury believe that by extendmg the duty to other veget- 

 able substances imported mixed with coffee aud chiccry 

 they will protect the revenue under that head ? They might 

 know, and they ought to Iniow, that the result will be exactly 

 the reverse ; the public will leave oft' more and more drink- 

 ing the wretched stuff which is sold to them under the name 

 if, or coupled with the name of, coffee, and they will take to 

 beer and spirits instead. 



But, setting aside the que.stion of revenue, another aspect 

 of the case appears to have entirely escaped the attention 

 of their lordships. Is it just, or right, or fair, that the nam 

 of coffee should be used as a sort of decoy ? and that, by 

 tacking to it some other name or epithet such as chicory or 

 French, Jersey date, or Fiij coffee, any kind of worthless or 

 nasty substances should be aUowed to be mixed with it, for 

 the sole object of getting a profit which could not be got, if 

 those articles were sold under their proper name. The 

 public are powerless to protect themsel\'es aguiust those 

 pracites, although we are gravely told that the persons who 

 infringe the i-egulations of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 

 render themselves liable to prosecution ; the endless form- 

 alities required, and the expenses of analysis. &c., are such 

 that the offending person is almost sure of immunity, or at 

 the most, if prosecuted by the Excise offieers, of a fine so 

 slight as to be a matter of perfect inchffereiicc to him. 



In fact the foreigner is told : we allow you to mix any 

 qnntity yon lihe of saw-dust, of acorns or roast carrots or 

 cahhage stalks vith co^'ee or chicory, and yon may impoH them 

 hear our customs officers v_ill charge you a duty of 2d per Ih.; 

 hut, as you will be infringing tlw Adulteration Acts, our Jioard 

 of Inland Ileveaue ojicers may then proceed againstyou or your 

 agents, and levy fines for suck infringment. 



The Treasury allow the importation of stuff which they 

 know to be spurious and of no value, and unsaleable here 

 or anywhere else, except under a fictitious name. I repeat 

 is it right or just, or moral? ^Why countenance or allow 

 the importation of those mixtures ? 'WTiat arc the iuterests 

 which appear to Government so worthy of b ing encouraged 

 aad protected at the expense of the British public and of 



