436 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
[January i, 1889. 
THE TEA WE DO NOT DRINK. 
There is hardly any better way of starting a con- 
troversy in the daily newspapers in the dull season of 
the year than that of throwing doubts upon what 
people should eat, drink, or avoid, and few subjects 
have so much attractiveness for the free lances in 
trade disputes as that pertaining to the purely 
domestic article tea. The discussion on this occasion 
was opened in the columns of the Standard under the 
sensational beading of "The Tea we Drink," by one 
who admits himself to be a " Tea Planter," and who 
"protests against the vile rubbish now being sold in 
London, and all over the country, as tea." He 
further says : — " I got a sample from a country town, 
a short time ago, which the grocer was selling at Is. 
per lb., and for which he informed me he gave 4Jrf. 
in bond. He then has to pay 6rf. per lb. duty, and 
carriage, possibly another farthing. This leaves him 
a profit of only Id. per lb. We thus have this tea 
sold in Mincing Lane at 4jil. per lb. Out of this the 
grower has to pay an export duty, in China, of not 
less than ljcl. per lb., leaving 2\d. to grow the tea, 
get a profit, pay freight, insurance, warehousing, and 
other expenses in England and brokers' charges for 
sale by auction." It will here be seen that CI Tea 
Planter" assumes that this tea came from China, 
whereas it might have been imported from India, 
where no " export duty " is levied, and this alone 
would be the means of adding l\d. per lb. to the 
profits of the growers. " Tea Planter " also 
tells us that he " tried the tea in question, 
and was astonished that people can be found 
to drink such stuff. Before infusion it smelt like 
shoe-leather ; after infusion it had a strong flavour 
of tallow, and the infused leaves had a most 
unpleasant smell.'' 
The "Planter" goes on to state somewhat need- 
lessly that "his object in writing is to warn people 
against the vile stuff sold at low prices " (when 
perhaps his real motive is to invite them to buy 
some "curious" sort ot tea which he has to sell at several 
pence per pound more), and adds that "the subject 
is one thai requires ventilation." There we agree 
with him entirely, but not in the sense that other 
correspondents have written in reply, where they do 
all they can to throw discredit upou the bona fides 
of firms, wholesale and retail, who seek to supply the 
public with a beverage which is pure and wholesome 
at luch prices as keen competition and the advantages 
of free trade enable them to fix. The fact probably 
is that these disparagers of other men's goods are 
envious of the success of their neighbours, and think 
that by injuring others in the eyes of the public they 
may draw more custom and patronage to their own 
side, either in the open market or at the secluded 
shop. The truth is, these writers are for the most 
part utterly ignorant of their subject, as is proved 
by the replies which remarks similar to the above 
extracts have elicited from parties who are equally 
interested in the trade, and who have a practical 
knowledge of the question they are called upon to 
explain. Kead first that paragraph of the letter signed 
" MinciDg Lane," which says :■ — The merchants (not 
the wholesale dealers) who import the tea to London 
have to sell it to the said wholesale dealers at the 
best price obtainable, and, in the case of the Ifct. 
tea referred to, the loss to the importer could not 
have been less than 50 per cent. After deducting the 
duty in China of, say, lid per pound, the native 
would then have something over Id. for his produce, 
and not as stated— a price amply sufficient to 
enable him to make fair quality. Doubtless, some 
very common stuff does leak into this country, but 
to speak of the teas the grocers are now sidling, duty 
paid, at If • per lb. as "vile rubbish" is absurd. In 
corroboration of this view " Expert," onother con- 
troversialist, informs us that " Tea Planter " can 
know little, if anything, of the Mincing Lane market. 
The mere cost of tea in China, tho import duty, 
and the various other charges, have absolutely nothing 
whatever to do with the price of tea in this country. 
This in regulated by the public auction Bales in the 
Commercial Sale-rooms, which are unreserved, so that 
the teas just fetch what buyers consider them worth, 
in open competition. It is absolutely untrue that 
'leaves once used are dried and rolled, mixed with 
a little fresh leaf.' It would never pay in this 
country, and could not be done without almost 
instant detection. If done in China (as it was 
many years ago) it would be rejected by the 
officers in connection with the Customs, and 
condemned." 
Our daily contemporary who has been publishing 
these random effusions has also been led to indulge in 
some imprudent comments in a special editorial on 
the subject, mentioning 1hat ''the beverage with 
which hardened tea-drinkers like Dr. Johnson, 
' amused the evening, solaced the midnight, and 
welcomed the morning,' was not quite the herb in 
which so many of his country-folk find a moderate 
degree of comfort. At 8s or 9s. the pound it was 
reasonably pure, and, though lacking something in 
nicety of preparation, was better than the haslily- 
oured stuff which is despatched to meet the demand 
for 'a sound family tea' at Is. 3d. the pound. The 
adulteration came later." This, a correspondent sign- 
ing himself Archibald Weir, absolutely denies when 
he declares that, according to a notebook of his, the 
foregoing " remarks on the purity of tea in Dr. 
Johnson's time are slightly optimistic. In 1777 an 
Act was required to prohibit counterfeiting tea with 
sole, liquorice, ash, or elder leaves, by imposing a 
penalty at £5 for every pound sold or found in 
possession." 
From this extreme of running down the teas of the 
present day, as deleterious, poisonous, and no one 
knows what, the same daily print has the inconsistency 
to rush to the opposite one, by stating that, 
"Accustomed to the low-priced article which the 
cutting competition in Mincing Lane has put before 
us, few men think or know that there exist, even in 
China, growths worth 40s. or 50.'. the pound, and 
that in the famous district of Uji, in Japan, there 
are some valued at more than 60s. the pound. Of 
course, we may well believe that there is not a great 
deal of this 'chop' in the Yokohama market. How- 
ever, 10s., 12.?., and even 15s. is by no means an 
uncommon retail price in Moscow and St. Petersburg ; 
and in London, brands quite as high, and as well 
worth the money, may be obtained, though, perhaps, 
not in the shops which profess to sell Fowery Pekoe 
at Is. 41. the pound." Much more ot this hyperbole 
would take away our breath, and we are glad to 
quote the rejoinder of " Mincing Lane," whose letter 
has been already alluded to, that " The highest price 
paid for black tea in China this last year was about 
60 taels per picul, or rather over, say Is. 4a!. per lb. 
in bond ; and never have I heard of such a 
price anywhere approaching the equivalent of 
40s. to 50s." 
Exaggeration and misrepresentation mark the greater 
portion of the recent correspondence on what they 
term the "Tea we Drink," showing that all they urge 
is not prompted by a desire to enlighten the public 
consumers of tea, so much as it is to benefit, enricb, 
and advertise themselves and their connections ; and 
as the existing state of things in the trade is the 
natural outcome of generations of experience, com- 
petition, and enterprise in every form, we would 
fain believe that it will not be this class of grumblers 
who will introduce a new system of business that will 
make tea-drinking a more innocent and cheap form 
of indulgence than it is now. The dealers, both whole- 
sale and retail as well as consumers, will therefore give 
little heed to what they see in the daily papers con- 
cerning tea, as there are few authorities on the subject 
who are to be trusted, not from any dishonest motives 
on their part — far from it,— but simply because they 
cannot always look at purely trade questions in an 
impartial light; and for this reason we ask our readers 
to adopt the idea, that what these busybodies have 
been talking about is not the tea we drink, but, for 
our credit's sake, "the tea we do not drink.— The 
Grocer. 
