March 1, 1902.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
635 
THE TEA DUTY. 
INFLUENTIAL DEPUTATION TO THE 
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER. 
PRODUCERS, BROKERS AND BUYERS PROTEST 
AGAINST AN INCREASE OF THE DUTY, 
A SYMPATHETIC REPLY. 
The suggestion that the duty on tea should be 
again increased was received with surprise and cons- 
ternation in London as well as in India and 
Ceylon, and the views of producers of British - 
grown tea, and of the brokers and buyers who 
handle it at home, were laid before the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer by a joint deputation 
which waited upon hiui on Tuesday, February 4, 
at the Treasury, Whitehall. To avoid the in- 
convenience that has been caused on former 
occasions, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach decided 
to limit the number of Pressmen at the 
interview to three, one of whom has reported the 
proceedings for the Ceylon Observer. 
The deputation was introduced by Sir H Seymour 
King, M. p., and it consisted of the following 
gentlemen :— 
Indian Tea Association (London): Messrs. 
Arthur Bryans (Chairman). J N Stuart, G Hen- 
derson, C C McLeod, and Ernest Tye (Secretary.) 
Ceylon Association in London : Messrs. 
H Bois (Cliairman), R A Bosanquet, Brown, A 
Thomson, and W Martin leake (Secretary) 
Tea Brokers' Association : Messrs. Arthur 
Thompson, F S Long, S H Cheshire (Chairman 
and A C Stanton. Tea Buyers' Association : 
Messrs. J Innes Rogers, (London Chamber of 
Commerce), Lecky and Appleton. 
Sir Micliael Hicks-Beach was accompanied by 
his private Secretary, Mr Hicks-Beach, and his 
official private Secretary, Mr Lawrence Guille- 
mard. 
Sir H. Seymour King, M. P., said :— I have 
been requested as i)resident of the Indian Tea 
Association, London, to introduce to you a depu- 
tation representative in the very highest degree 
of the tea-pl aiting industry in India and Ceylon. 
In the first place I siiould like to express their 
acknowledgments to you. Sir Michael Hicks- 
Beach, for your courtesy in giving us a portion 
of your very valuable time to hear first-hand 
what they ha^e to say for themselves in depre- 
cation of any further advance in the duty on tea, 
and also in pointing out to you how hard is the 
pressure on the industry of the duty as it at 
present exists. That the industry is an important 
one you will readily agree when I tell you that 
I in India there are 520,000 acres of land planted 
in tea, with an invested capital of £20,000,000 and 
an output ot 180,000,000 lb. of tea per annum. More 
than one-quarter of that total is represented by 
the gentlemen now in this room. In Ceylon 
: there are 387,000 acres in cultivation, with 
£15,000,000 invested, andan outputof 145,000,0001b. 
The other gentlemen who are present are repre- 
isentatives of the Tea Brokers' Association and 
ithe Tea Buyers' Association, so that all the 
iinterests concerned in this article are represented 
■here today. 
MR. bryans for the INDIAN PRODUCERS. 
Mr Arthur Bryans said he appeared on behalf 
of the Indian Tea Association, and in the first 
place he wished to thank >Sir Michael Hicks-Beach 
for receiving them, and giving them an opportu- 
lOity of addressing him on a subiect which was 
79 
of almost vital interest to them. The Indian Tea 
Association, with its Calcutta branch, might be 
taken to represent the whole of the tea industry 
iu India ; as Sir H. Seymour King had said^ 
it represented an area of some 520,000 acres of 
tea, which yielded last year a crop of 187,500,000 
lb. of the sterling value of £5,664,000. The 
Chancellor of the Exchequer would doubtless 
remember that in 1900 they addressed a memorial 
to him on the subject of the duty, and tiie argu- 
ments they had used then certainly applied with 
equal force now. To put it briefly, their industry 
was in a bad way. It was one with which he had 
been connected since 1869, and though during those 
33 years they had seen their ups and downs they 
had never passed through such a prolonged period 
of depression as they had been suffering from 
since about the middle of 1900. This depression 
was still with them ; indeed, he regarded the year 
1902 as likely to be the most crucial of any that 
they had passed through. For these bad times 
over-production, as the Chancellor of the Exche- 
quer was doubtless aware, was partly respon- 
sible, but this did not make the bad times 
any the less onerous to them. With regard 
to this question of over-production he would 
like 10 draw the Ghancellor's attention 
to the fact that from the time the tea bushes 
were planted some 3 or 4 years had to elapse 
before they came into bearing, and therefore the 
planting which had recently given them the 
over production from which they were to some 
extent suffering had all been done prior to the 
extra duty being put on in March, 1900, And 
when this planting was done they had no reason 
to anticipate that their industry would be sub- 
jected to an increase of taxation — indeed, a 
lower duty on such articles as tea seemed to be 
the more likely policy. It was particularly un* 
fortunate that just at this ppriod it was deemed 
advisable to make an addition of 50 per cent to 
the then existing duty. It was hoped that this 
addition woulil be of temporary operation, and they 
had recognised the necessity and uttered no com- 
plaint. But when they saw that the increase 
was to be more lasting than they, or Sir Michael 
Hicks-Beach, had thought when it was imposed 
they had approached him and asked him for 
relief. He (the Chancellor) did not see his way 
to grant them what they wished, but he held out 
some hope in his Budget speech and again when 
speaking on the Finance Bill. He (the speaker) 
trusteil that Sir [.lichael would pardon him for 
reminding him of what he had said. In the 
Budget speech on April 15, he said : " I turn to 
tea. Tea has already been taxed up to 75 per 
cent of its value. It is produced mainly in InAxn. 
and Ceylon, and it is a product in which our 
fellow-subjects at home and abroad are deeply 
interested, and the trade — largely, I think, 
owing to over-production — is not in a very satis- 
factory condition. I do not think we ought to 
increase the duty on tea." And in his speech on the 
Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer said : 
"If it should ever be my happy lot to be able to 
reduce taxation, I should be disposed to reduce 
the duty on tea rather than ou beer and spirits." 
If the Chancellor's "happy lot" had not arrived 
yet, they certainly hoped it would soon come, 
and that on the present occasion he could at 
least hold out some hopes to them. At present 
tea was taxed up to 75 per cent of its value. 
Although there had been a rise in value of the 
lower grades, the medium grades showed littlQ 
