Mar, 7.
Ix view of the renewed attention drawn to the differential duty on China tea we devoted an article last week to a consideration of its; main aspects as presented to us here. Like all fiscal questions, however, it is impossible in one: such article to cover the whole; ground, and of so great importance is the question that a more detailed examination of certain of its salient features is undoubtedly Warranted. Tea is the oldest trade which Great Britain has with china, and in. a country where! }long associations count for 50; much the possibility of its virtual]
motion is not to be regarded lightly. In our previous article on the subject we laid emphasis upon the sentiment attaching to the case, the feeling on the part} of the Chinese that unfair treatment is being meted out to them, and it were well that this should be firmly grasped by all the interests in the United Kingdom whatsoever way associated with China. The immense drop in the consumption of the cheaper China tea by Great Britain has meant that the tea farmers of the Hankow and other districts, have curtailed their production to a marked extent, and will be obliged to pursue the same policy in future years. Now anybody who has considered the vast trade we have with the Yangtze Valley, noted for instance the great shiploads of cotton goods which we despatch thither by practically every steamer, will instantly grasp the reaction of the one trade upon the other. It is not confined to a mere question of a necessary reduction in these British importa following upon a lower buying power on the part of the populace, but there is that very important point of the popularity of British goods, i factor which can never be ignored in China. The Chinese engaged in the tea trade lay stress upon it, and their Minister la London has brought it to the notice of the British Government. Inquiry shows that both British and Chinese merchants here ere fully alive to the position as it affects British trade generally, and we believe we are right in saying that the consensus of opinion is that the removal of the duty would exercise beneficial influence upon our commerce.
Coming again to the amount of revenue collected from this differential duty and to the possible competitive element introduced by China tea as against the British-grown variety, there is much of interest to be noted. The figures given by the Chancellor of the Ex-"chequer in the House a week age showed that the extra twopence levied on China tea had brought in a total of utterly negligible size in relation to the revenue and expenditure shown in the annual budget. Now the excise duty on all tea sold in the United Kingdom—an amount which varies from year to year—is at present tenpence on the pound. When there was no differential duty the amount of China tea consumed in Great Britain was between ten and fifteen million pounds, rising in one year to nearly nineteen millions, while in the year 1920- 21, when the duty was in force, the total was barely five millions. Here is a very heavy drop in excise revenue, which is certainly not compensated for by the extra twopenny tax. The preferential party will inevitably retort that the excise has not suffered in the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.