THE TEA TRADE.
THE readers of the Spectator will recollect that we kept the public duly informed, from time to time, respecting the history of
Consumption.
1833 lbs.:31,529 620 Duty.
1835 36.606 930 :8:44374:105201 1836 49,841,667 4,728,617
The diffesence between the last year of monopoly and the last year of free trade shows an increase in the revenue—in that revenue which, according to the monopolists, would inevitably fall off to nothing—amounting to more than a million and a quarter sterling. The increase in the tea-duty,consequent upon the destruction of the monopely, constitutes, in reality, the great bulk of the surplus reve- nue which is now at the disposal of Government. We predicted, in fact, that the duty on tea would soon constitute the greatest branch of the public retenue derived from any single article. This is in rapid progress : it already exceeds, considerably, the duty on sugar and molasses ; is nearly equal to the malt-duty ; and is within less than half a million of the excise on home spirits. Under the monopoly, the duty bad been falling off, not only pro- portionally to population, but even absolutely. In 1822, the tea revenue touched on four millions sterling: and we have seen, that in the last year of the monopoly, or about ten years later, it was half a million sterling below this.* The present prices of tea, after a three years' struggle to keep them up, are pretty much the same as they have long been in other coun• tries, where the trade in tea is tree, and which possess the same means of getting a cheap supply. The average price of all bohea teas last year was under 10d. per pound ; which is a good deal less than half what it was under the monopoly. The de- cline in the class of congous is not so great, but amounts to at least 40 per cent. One of the remarkable circumstances con- !meted with this fall of prices is, that the present consumption, of nearly fifty millions of pounds, costs the country a great deal less than a consumption under thirty-tw e millions cost while the monopoly existed. The smaller amount, in reality, cost about three millions and a half sterling, or with duty about seven mil- lions; while the larger one costs, without duty, not mare than two millions seven hundred thousand pounds ; which is a saving in priruecost of 800,000/. a year. Even including duty, while the con- sumption has increased by more than one-half, the actual cost to the consumer of the larger supply is but four hundred thousand pounds more than of the smaller. A word, however, about the duties. They are exorbitant, and iteolerably unequal : and this we owe to the tea-dealers, who are now loudest in their complaints on the subject. Upon the lowest-ptiecd bsheas, of which the average, last sear, was sixpence ner pound, the (lute on the value is up- wards of 400 per cent. Upon the lowest-priced congou it is about 200 per cent.; and on the lowest-priced hyson about 100 per cent. On the highest-priced buhea it is 170 per cent.; on the highest. priced cougou 75 per cent.; and on the highest-priced hyson about 40 per cent. This is indecent, and almost fraudulent. It is virtually saying and doing this—" The pourer orders of society shall pay an average duty of 235 per cent., the middle classes one of 137 per cent., and the rich one of only 70 per cent: In other words, the present tax says—" The middle classes shall pay double the duty which the rich pay ; and the poorer classes shall pay twice as much as the middle orders, and four times as much as the rich." No Chancellor of the Ex- chequer would dare to put down such a schedule of ad valorem duties in a tariff; and, in our humble opinion, he is even less justi- • Contrast the fiscal results in this now free tradeartiele, with those to another :real article or .0401 there is still a virtual monopl■. i,ar, the tea.duties had in-
creased by the sum of nearly nine hnn 'red thousand pounds: and the saz1rvulutles had
fallen off, without any reduction of rate, by above its hundred and luny thousand pounds. this important branch of trade. After a struggle of eight years duration with monopolists of all sorts—Tory statesmen. East India Directors, teadealers, and tea-brokers—the monopoly is, at length, completely shattered to pieces; and the public, in so far as concerns price, exclusive of duty, is enjoying the full bene- fit of a flee trade. We stated that under the monopoly the im- pertations were small, and would increase in a free trade ; that the consumption was limited by an excess of monopoly price, and would increase under the reduced prices of a free competition. We stated that the prices charged for tea, under the monopoly, were double what they should be ; and consequently that the people were paying, for a limited consumption, double what they should pay,—a provess by u hich they were robbed of about two millions a sear. We stated that the revenue had declined under the monopoly, and would increase in a free trade. Finally, we stated that there neither was nor could be any real export trade in tea under the monopoly, but that such experts would cer- tainly exist in a free trade. Experience ha.: ratified all our predictions; and ibis, indeed, to an extent beyond our own most sanguine hopes. The average importation of the Company during the last years of their trading exietenee was
about thirty-four millions ot pounds. In 1835. there was: imported above forty-three millions of pound.: (43.242.000); and in 1836, above fifty millions of pounds (50,066.000). He:e was, in three years time, an increase approaching to 50 per cent.; and that from a country whirl], it was (lectured, could yield no increase, but the produce of which must inevitably decrease in the hands of free traders. The consumption and revenue are given below in a tabu- lar form, for the last year of the monopoly and the last two years of free trade.
fiable in don g se in the el: n esinte wanner in %latch the impost is now levied. However it o ,nvehieut, we must revert to the ad valorem duty.
The exports of tea in 1833 were about a'quarter of' a million of' pounds ; in 1825 they exceed d two millions; and in 1836 were four millions two bundled th atsand pounds,—an increase of six- teenfold in three years' time: No country, in fast, can import so cheaply as we can. From all that we have said, it is cbvims that the example of the five trade in tea is well w tarn). of imitation in other branches of our commerce.
Previous page
