« PreviousContinue »
to have saved ; and if I include, as I think I may be allowed to do, the fum to which the discount upon those ceas would have amounted, the faving upon the teas of last sale will be full 200,oool. less than it hould have been. As the report holds forth such abundant information relative to the saving of the public, and the profit of the tea-dealer, I wonder it did not mention the gain of the company, with which the reporters must have been at least as well acquainted.'
Mr. Twining agrees with the Report as to the probability that at least as much tea was smuggled as paid duty ; but he thinks, that in the clause immediately subsequent, the Report has not stated the subject fairly. It is there said, in which case only half the kingdom, contributed to the former revenue from tea : the whole kingdom contributes to the window tax.' The fact is, our author observes, that not half the kingdom, bat only half the consumers of tea, contributed to the former revenue from that article ; and that nothing like all the kingdom, or all the consumers of tea, contribute to the window tax. He farther remarks, that a very considerable number of the consumers of tea do not pay any window tax at all, and yet consume those species of tea, upon which almost the whole saving (or, at least upwards of five-sixths of it) occurs ; whilst the remaining part of the former consumers of legaltea, who are, according to the Report, to contribute the sum of three hundred thousand pounds, drink those species of tea from which not even one-fixth of the saving arises; the rest, of the window tax being made up, not as the Report seems to imply, by all, but by a part only of those who before contributed nothing. Mr. Twining however adds, that though the distribution of the window tax, and the saving upon tea, do by no means fall in the manner implied by the Report, yet, in his opinion, they fall, in general, as they ought: for that the principal part of the saving is enjoyed by the poor, and the principal part of the tax, on the contrary, falls upon the rich.
Mr, Twining affirms, that he never remembers fresher and better teas, than those with which the public may at present be supplied. This affertion, from a person of so much experience in the trade, refle&ts a very unfavourable presumption, on the conduct either of the company, or the teadealers, considering the general complaint, at present, of the bad quality of teas. We are sorry to find that the company is not exempted from a share of this imputation, by continuing to expose bad teas to sale, rather than submit to the loss which would accrue from destroying them.
• When tea is refused at one lale, says our author, it is usually, if not'always, put up at some fubsequent fale; and it
is then put up fale after sale, till it finds, at length, a pura chafer. "I mention this circumstance for two reasons: the first is, that I think the report implies that which is not fact: the other is, that I have long thought this an evil which ought to be corrected. Tea which is damaged, or very bad in quality, ought never to be exposed to sale by the East India company. Indeed any person would suppose, from the following passage in the report, that the company never did sell tea of this de. fcription ; for the report fays" perhaps indeed the prize seas (part of which were very bad and damaged) may, to a few dishonest dealers, have afforded a mixture inferior to any tea of the company's importing ; but this means of adulteration must be soon exhausted.” I rather think the public will be surprised when I tell them, that the company do put up to fale a great deal of tea which is “ very bad and damaged.” It often happens that a cheft of this tea is in the same lot with a cheft or two of better tea; and, in this case, the good fells the bad, or that which, in fact, is not of a “ merchantable quality.” As the company have now confeffed, that fuch tea is made a dishonest use of, and that better tea is adulterated with it, I think they must allow, that it ought never to be pat up to lale. It is well known that when this tea does find purchasers, they too frequently offer it to the public under the title of good tea; for if they were to call it bad, they would fell but little of it. Thus are the public deceived ; and thus is the fair trader, who alks a higher price for the tea which he calls good, and which actually is so, materially injured. It is poflible that the prize tea, which has given rise to this obfervation, might be even worse than the worft of the company's tea; but that will not make the company's tea fit to be fold. I am not, however, fo unreasonable as to expect that the company fhould get no compensation for their damaged tea: I would with their trade to be, upon the whole, a trade of profit. For some of this tea, I believe the company are paid by the owners of their ships ; and as to the remainder, the tea which is not damaged Mould pay for that which is. It will be more advantageous to the public to consent to this, than to drink a miserable infusion of decayed and damaged leaves. I would, however, distinguish between that tea which has accidentally been damaged after the company bought it, and that which, when they bought it, was good for nothing. There is no reason why the public should be answerable for such injudicious purchases of the company. I am sorry to observe, that there is; at prefent, too much occafion for this remark; for, notwithstanding the company have of late imported very fresh and good teas, they have also imported, within these few years, and even this year, very bad. The principal part of the Singlo rea, in the present sale, to which the dealers have objected, does not appear to have received the least injury in its passage, but to have been absolutely unft for use when it was bought,
Nor can fuch purchases be justified by the company's faying, that their investments, could not be completed without them! I cannot allow that any investment is to be completed by the ; purchase of such miserable trash. If the Chinese find that the English fupra-cargoes will buy such tea, they will certainly take care that no large investment should ever be completed without it; but let them perceive that the English will not buy it, and I think they will contrive to produce better.
The company do indeed take the damaged tea out of those chests which appear to be considerably injured by falt-water ; and the tea fo taken out is burnt... But this business is performed by persons who do it very inaccurately. If they find any tea which is actually wet, or which, from the wet it fors' merly received, is caked together, that tea is taken out of the cheft; but the remainder which is left in; and which is exposed to sale, has often received so much injury as to be unfit for use, A great deal of tea, which is damaged, musty, and mouldy, escapes the notice of those persons who are employed in fepa-2 rating the damaged from the saleable tea.- When the tea.. dealers or brokers see the teas which are to be exposed to sale, they discover these bad chests; but, notwithstanding the tea is indisputably musty or mouldy, and perhaps worse than a great deat of that which is condemned to be burnt, it is itill exposed to sale.'
Mr. Twining observes, it may perhaps be thought that he is acting the part of a very unkilful advocate for the teatrade, whilft he is exposing the badness of some tea. But he thinks the public will never entertain a better opinion of tea, than when they perceive that the persons who deal in it, and who are the best judges of it, are careful to prevent the fale of any which is unfit for public use. The tea-dealers, says he, have done this, upon the present occasion : and I doubt not but they will continue to do it.' We sincerely with that this assertion may be well founded ; for we should be sorry to think, that Mr. Twining had introduced it only with the view to obviate an injurious charge, of his being a very unskilful advocate for the tea-trade.'
Mr. Twining, to prevent all suspicion of his having intentionally misrepresented any part of the Report, has annexed a copy of it to his Remarks. We shall conclude this article with observing, that amidst the patriotic declarations of the directors on one hand ; and, on the other, of the body of tea-dealers, under the name of their zealous and intelligent representative Mr. Twining, we wish to see the public derive some more essential benefit, relative to the prices and quality of tea, than can result from the mutual recrimination of those interested parties. We must however do this spiriced author
the juftice to acknowlege, that his Remarks have a natural tendency to produce advantageous effects. Of accomplishing this they could not fail, if the directors and the tea-dealers would honestly and vigorously co-operate in laying 'the ax to the root of the tree;' we mean not for the purpose of destroying the tca-plant (for that, we are afraid, would be considered as a national calamity); but with the view of diminishing the price, and preserving the purity of a beverage become so much the object of almost universal indulgence.
Observations on the Rights and Duty of Juries, in Trials for
Libels : togerher with Remarks on the Origin and Nature of
of the law as well as the fac, is a question which has been much agitated for some time, and the determination of it, on either fide, seems not likely to afford general fatisfaction. The author of the Observations before us espouses, with great zeal, the popular doctrine that the jury has such a right. In endeavouring to establish this principle, he takes a wide view of the several opinions incidentally delivered by judges, and the sentiments maintained by political and legal writers on this fabject. The chief argument in support of this doctrine is, what he calls • a very ancient, and certainly a very rational idea; namely; that judges, appointed by the king, may have an improper bias on their minds, in causes between the crown and the subject. We shall readily admit that the jealousy of such an influence is not unnatural in a free conftitution; but we may venture to affirm, that the judges being appointed by the king, was a circumftance which could less excite sufpicion of undue influence, than that of their being formerly removeable at the royal pleasure. Dr. Towers must know sufficiently well both the change, and the importance of that change, which has of late taken place in the fituation of the judges; and we therefore think that he argues difingenuously, when he affects to represent the ancient and present times as exposed to equal danger from any biass on the minds of the judges.
Among the instances adduced by Dr. Towers, of those who, in trials for libels, have denied the power of the judges to extend to the determination of the point of law, is the case of the famous Lilburne, who addressed the judges thus :
"The jury by law are not only judges of fact, but of law also; and you that call yourfelves judges of the law, are no
more but Norman intruders; and in deed, and in truth, i the jury please, are no more but cyphets, to pronounce their verdict.'
Though we condemn, the severity of the star-chamber court, in the ' affair' of Lilburne,' we cannot allow that this case has great weight towards confirming our author's opinion, that the interposition of the judges, in trials of libel, is actually a ufurpation. Lilbůrne's; invective, that the judges were
Norman intruders,' is meant to convey an infinuation, that before the Norman Conqueft, the trials, in respect to libels, were otherwise determined. But we believe it will be difficult to prove, that before the epoch of the Conqueft, there ever was any trial for a libel in this country. The invention of printing is the period which laid the foundation for this species of offence ; and when Dr. Towers alledges that his doctrine is conformable to the practice of juries în times more remote than the middle of the fifteenth century, he ascends to an æra where it is impoffble to find either common or statute law
the subject. We cannot help being of opinion, that this author discovers a want of candour in an observation which he makes on Blackstone's Commentaries. The learned author of that work had expressed himself in the following terms on the subject of libels.
" In a criminal prosecution,” he says, " the tendency which all libels have to create animosities, and to disturb the public peace, is the fole consideration of the law. And, therefore, in such prosecutions, the only facts to be considered are, first, the making or públiming of the book or writing; and secondly, whether the maiter be criminal: and if both these points are against the defendant, then the offence against the public is complete."
In a later edition of the Commentaries, Mr.justice Blackstone altered the passage here cited, and inserted the word points instead of facts. Dr. Towers represents this amendment as entirely a political accommodation. It is manifeet, he adds, that the original and uncorrupted opinion of Blackstone was, that the criminality of a book or paper, whether it was, or was not, a libel, was a question of fat, and not a question of law.' The argument that an original opinion should be bet founded, seems not very conformable either to reason or truth; and with regard to its being urcorrupted, we know too well the clearness of understanding, and the integrity, with which the learned judge was endowed, to suffer the infinuatic n to pass unnoticed, that his opinion was not equally uncorrupted when he made the alteration above mentioned.