276 
THE TROPICAL 
AGRICULTURIST. [6ct. 1, 18§9. 
is tea, and not unfit for human consumption, cannot 
be stopped under present conditions, any more than 
it would be in tiie absence of an import duty. 
Your second objection is of course the more im- 
portant and it covers more ground. Arguments 
supporting this objection are all based on the fact 
that as the duty of Id bears a greater proportion to 
the average cost of China tea in bond than it does 
to British grown tea, reduction or abolition of duty 
would amount to a larger percentage in the case of 
the former than of the latter, and on the idea that 
this relatively larger reduction would have an appre- 
ciable effect upon consumption, also relatively. It 
is admitted that reduction of duty in the post has 
tended to increase consumption as a whole, and 
that further reductions would have similar effects. 
Why should the relative effects be different ? The 
reduction of duty from 6d to 4d did not check the 
progress of British-grown teas, and my Committee 
do not believe that a further reduction would do 
so. They cannot find anything in the history of 
India and Ceylon tea in any country to support 
the assumption that a high or low duty affects 
the progress thereof in relation to China tea. 
British tea has won its way so far because it is a 
better article, and where known meets better the 
public taste, and, in the opinion of my Committee, it 
will continue to hold its own in any field where 
it has an equal chance. Therefore anything that 
tends to incre.ise the consumption of tea as a 
whole will be to the benefit of India and Ceylon. 
They further direct me to point out that this argu- 
ment has never yet been brought forward in any 
other connection. India and Ceylon have never 
considered the question of duties when attacking 
new markets, but have spent money freely in coun- 
tries where tea was free, and where duties range 
from Id up to say Is lOd per Ih. in the United 
States there was no duty when the joint campaign 
was begun there, nor did anyone suggest that it would 
be advisable to attack Russia first because she 
Isvied a one and tenpenny duty. On the contrary the 
10 cents duty levied by the United States in con- 
sequence of the Spanish war was looked upon as a 
misfortune, and India and Ceylon do not so far ao my 
Committee know consider its imposition an advantage 
to them in endeavouring to obtain an increased share 
of the American trade in tea. My Committee then 
contend not only that all experience bearing upon the 
subject is against the assumptions upon which the 
second argument is based, but that the policy of both 
Ceylon and India in capturing fresh markets has 
hitherto ignored all considerations of the kind. They 
think that the same principles may be applied in 
endeavours to expand old markets as to the exploit- 
ation of new ones. 
With regard to the remarks made by your Chairman 
in this connection about the blending of cheap 
common teas, I am desired to say that, in the opinion 
of my Committee, everything which tends to lessen 
the coat of delivering good teas to consumers will tend 
to an increased use of such teas in blends. The 
' shilling canister ' undoubtedly has a depressing effect 
upon wholesale prices, and your Chairman is no 
doubt correct in his description of the present tend- 
ency in blending, but my Committee think that the 
best way of curing the evil is to make an honest 
shilling canister of British-grown tea possible. 
The third point I have noted above is that the time 
for agitating for the reduction or abolition of duty is 
not propitious. My Committee would certainly not 
advocate an agitation which was not backed very 
strongly by proprietors and all interested in Indian 
and Ceylon tea as growers, but granting reasonable 
unanimity, which is the first thing to be obtained, my 
Committee advocate agitation at every possible oppor- 
tunity. It is true that the British Government are 
meantime committed to an unprecedented rate of 
expenditure and may be unable to forego immediately 
any existing source of revenue, but a further expansion 
of revenue, or a change of policy, or of Government, 
may come very soon, and sooner or later may cer- 
tainly bo expected. It is very desirable, therefore, 
Ce^loa mi luiitt sboalcl come to one miocl on 
this subject now, and be ready to take advantage of 
every opportunity to strengthen the sentiment which 
already exists in favour of a '' Free Breakfast Table " 
in the United Kingdom. 
I now turn to a matter upon which my Committee 
lay considerable stress, but which is only hinted 
at by one of the correspondents quoted in the papers 
you sent to this Association. I mean the saving in 
London warehouse charges — now felt to be so grievous 
a burden — which would inevitably follow abolition of 
duty. A duty imposes upon any trade affected, 
charges amounting to a considerable percentage in 
addition to such duty. In the case of tea this per- 
centage would be but a moiety of the saving which 
Messrs, Walker, Lambe & Co. refer to when saying 
" the conditions under which teas must be entered 
and warehoused and handled for the mere purpose of 
securing and collecting the duty are necessarily 
cumljersome and expensive." When added together 
all the.'fe charges diiect, and incidental, must be 
very heavy indeed, whilst if importers were freed 
from the necessity of going into ' Bond,' it is obvious 
that the field for warehousing would be extended, 
and the possibility of reducing such charges as would 
still be incurred much increased. At present, you 
are aware, the London Warehousing Companies 
refuse to consider any suggestion to reduce charges, 
and under existing conditions they have practically 
a monopoly. My Committee believe that abolition 
of the duty would weaken, if it did not destroy 
this monopoly, and that a further reduction of 
the then remaining charges would be possible. 
These advantages would only accrue in the 
event of abolition, and this is why my Committee 
strongly advocate an agitation with this end in 
view in preference to asking merely for a reduction 
of duty. 
In urging upon you these further reasons for agi- 
tating this question, my Committee would call 
attention to the fact that if the argument of what 
I may call relative effects upon the trade of British 
and China-grown teas holds good at all, it is good 
against a reduction of any charges that affect all 
teas imported into London and which are levied 
upon weight. This fact of itself seems to them t^o 
reduce the argument to an absurdity, and they 
trust your Committee will not be led to accept 
a theory which would logically debar any endeavour 
to reform any charges comirg within the above 
category. 
I regret that there has been so much delay in an- 
swering your letter, but my Committee thought that 
figures from Australia, where rates of duty have 
varied much, and are still-variable, might throw some 
light on the discussion Those from New South 
Wales are only just to hand. These figures, so far 
as they go, show that in Australia experience does 
not justify the fears expressed in regard to the 
future in England should the duty there be reduced 
or abolished. Abolition in New South Wales did 
not stop the decline of the China trade nor rednc- 
tion in Victoria a very largely increased share to 
British-grown teas in a trade of greater total volume, 
and the causes for variations from year to year in 
the relative progress of the rival Empires, must be 
sought for elsewhere than in alterations of duties. 
I send copies of the statements received which re- 
late to Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland for 
your information. 
My Committee hope that you will see your way to 
join them in urging upon both the Associations in 
London the desirability of pressing for abolition. — 
yours faithfully, J. Tayloe, Acting Secretary. 
Accompaniments : — Three Statements, A, B and C, 
(The first shows the imports into New South Wales 
between 1889-98 with the duty imposed each year: the 
second those into Victoria and the third those into 
Queensland. 
The earliest records available shew that in 1853 
a duty of 8d per lb. was in force in Victoria. The 
following year the duty was raised to 6d per lb., 
and no alteration took place till 1865 when it was 
lowered to 3i perlb, aQd reisajned eg till titeSl^t 
