Notwithstanding the great outcries against the Government duty, the consumption of tea steadily increased, and in 1844 the duty alone amounted to 4,524,193_l._ There were, it must be admitted, some inequalities in the system of taxation. The question attracted the notice of Mr. Leitch Ritchie (then editor of _Chambers's Journal_), who suggested that the moral reform and social improvement for which the present age is remarkable have had their basis in--tea. But if Great Britain is so large a consumer of tea, why, he asks, "do crime and ignorance still prevail amongst the body of the people? Because," he answers, "the poorer classes still drink bad tea, imitation tea, or no tea at all. The tea that is now in bond at tenpence pays a duty of two shillings and a penny, while the tea that is sold in bond at several shillings pays no more. Thus the poor are charged at least three times more, according to value, than the rich." An illustration of this anomaly was given by a speaker at a second meeting held at Liverpool in 1848, for the purpose of securing a reduction in the duties. "Tea," says the speaker, "must be considered in a two-fold light, not merely as an article of luxury to some, but as an article of necessity to all classes of her Majesty's subjects. But do all classes procure this necessity on equal terms? No; for though it is in general use with the peer as well as the peasant, we yet find the same duties levied on teas of the lowest as on teas of the highest description." It was urged by those who defended the policy of the Government that tea was a stimulant, and that therefore it was injurious. "We admit the fact," said the Rev. Dr. Hume, "but we strenuously deny the inference. A stimulant is not necessarily injurious, though the more violent always are. Heat is a stimulant, and so is water in particular circumstances; food is a stimulant; the light of heaven is a stimulant, whether in animal or in vegetable nature, and so is the beaming countenance and kindling heart of a sympathetic friend."