December i, 1883.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



419 



than pruning and gathering on such hill slopes as ours 

 being necessary, permanency may be dismissed from our 

 minds as an impossibility. 



Most people, however, will be satisfied with such re- 

 turns as we are promised, even if they amount to 20 

 per cent for as many years on invested capital ! 



I cannot let Mr. Smith's remarks at our meeting pass 

 mmoticed, and with your permission I propose saying 

 something when I can get a little spare time. — Faithfully 

 yoiurs, JAMKS SIiN'OLAIE. 



LONDON CHAKGES ON TEA. 



30th October 1S83. 

 Sir, — A Ceylon t'\-i planter (page 413) raises the 

 question of London charges and " exactions " on 

 tea. He has not, X think, made out a very strong 

 case for himself as things are. It has always been 

 the custom to allow one pound per parcel to tbe 

 buyer, and, as a fact, 1^ per cent, wastage is not 

 excessive in re-raeasiirement, especially when, as n 

 often the case with Ceylon manufacture, the teas are 

 " dirty." * It is quite true, as was s tated by your 

 London correspondent, that the dealers have lately 

 burnt their fingers over the long prices realized by 

 our teas, and two mails ago I myself heard of one 

 large firm who were takiug 3d less than they paid 

 for a breali of Looleooudura tea ; there is no doubt, 

 in my mind, that Ceylou teas will become low-priced, 

 comparatively, if they are not kept well in hand. The 

 public have taken kindly to them, and are willing 

 to pay long prices, but, as soon as ever an appreciable 

 quantity is upon the market the buyers will keep the 

 game in their own hand; with a demand, they can 

 sell at once at say Id advance to the retailer, who 

 will, as usual, make the real profit out of the public. 

 No one has a right to complain. Let us see how 

 the grower can get the benefit of this retail profit. We 

 know that many Lidian tea companies opened direct 

 agencies in LonJon for sale of their produce, and that 

 most of them have proved unreuiunerative. The reason 

 for this is, I take it, that tbe public can buy as much 

 Aasam tea as it likes from any grocer's shop in the 

 kingdom. With us in Ceylou it is different: we can, at 

 present, only put a limited quantity of tea upon tbo 

 market, a quantity which, as Ihave said, we can keep 

 well iu hand. It behoves us to keep up our prices 

 now, and to get them well established for the big 

 lots that wo shall be shipping a few years hence. Tbo 

 market will not help us, and I believe the only way 

 is to place our teas directly in the hands of retailers. 

 (Five or six largo houses, such as Piidgeuay's, 

 would take tho whole of our present supply.) If the 

 ■ large growers would agree to do this, the dealeis would 

 bo nowhere, and the public would be obliged to get 

 their Oeylou teas from the duly-authorized agencies 

 thoughout CIreat Britain, &,a. By (lu arrangement that 

 can be entered into, the planter can draw upon the 

 retailer, up to 50 cents per pound f. o. b. ; the retaiiir 

 for say 15 per cent commission must sell under tho 

 account sales, and by this means the average to tho 

 grower could hardly be less than Is T^d net. I can prove 

 that which I write. You are quite at liberty ti give 

 my name to any enquirer. A. 



[Tho scheme could be rendered possible only by 

 unanimity, which i3 unattainable. — Ed.] 



MR.""ilALLILEY AND Mil. HOLLO WAY. 



Sir, — Between the two gentlemen mentioued above, 

 Ceylon coffee planters have a bad time of it. By their 

 own accounl. they both know how to regenerate coffee 

 aud planters. Yet planters will not be regenerated 

 by their methods. Mr. Halliley confines himself to 

 propounding theories (or rather hypotheses) while 

 Mr. Holloway takes refuge in vague generalities that 

 no fellow can corner. 



• We have seen no such; .^statemeut in Englieh reports. 

 — Ed. 



When jlr. Halhley can say: "Ci-ino ai.J see, here 

 are two siinil-ir poi tions of the estate, one part worked 

 on my "ystam and one part on the old-fa? hioned sys- 

 tem ; here is tho acreage of the two portions, here is 

 the expenditure, here the details of work done for 3 

 or 4 seasons consecutively, here are the crops, and 

 here are the profits (this A'. B. !): judge ye for your- 

 selves" — then the planters may be regenerated, but not 

 till then. Uufortunately (? fortunately), very few 

 planters are in a position to mak« any attempt at a 

 system so opposed to ordinary principles of agriculture. 



Mr. Holloway is not much better. Ho has every 

 advantage to start with — good soil, generiilly sheltered,, 

 and the best climate for citfee — the fundamental ele- 

 ments of success. From these very particular con- 

 ditions he goes on to prescribe, ijenerally, a system of 

 cultivation. Mr. Holloway deserves praise to a cert- 

 ain extent for being able to make his place pay at 

 present (even under favorable couditione), but beyond 

 this 1 see no merit. High cnltivatiou or a special 

 lino of cultivation is not a panacea for all the ills 

 coffee is heir to. What suits Jfr. Holloway's soil and 

 climate may not suit the next estate. Bees will not 

 make a coffee crop, nor vnW the want of them seriously 

 diminish the effects of a good blossom. If Mr. Holloway 

 can get a good blossom iu favorable weather, he won't 

 break his heart because there arc no bees. On a low 

 bush like coffee, »uts and many other (some very 

 .''mall) insects appear to be far more active than 

 bees. 



Mr. Holloway goes on to mention some estates which 

 he says have "splendid crops." I have not seen 

 them, and, I am inclined to think, neither have the 

 superintendents 1 At auyrate thej are not gitliO'cd 

 yet. And I could name at least two estntes in Ktle- 

 bokka which havo been very highly cultivated under 

 a first-class manager for several years, but which 

 have "gone back" as badly a-i any others. 



In conclusion, let Mr. Holloway publish the acreage 

 he weeds* and cultivates, the expenditure thereon, md 

 a few details of tho works, and, finally, the total 

 crops, say for 4 years back. From that, I think, we 

 shall mau"go to calculate the profits ! I freely admit 

 that I am sceptical of the results. — Yours truly, M. 



HAND AND MACHINERY MADE TEA. 



Maskeliya, Ist Nov. 1883. 



Deau Sir, — Does your correspondcut " D " (page 417) 

 dispute my figures for the handmanuracture of tea ? If 

 so, and he can tell me on what grounds ho does so, I 

 shall be glad to hear from him. ' If, however, he only 

 desires to make remarks on my intellectual short- 

 comiiigs, why then, sir, " this discussion," as you 

 sometimes have to observe, " must now cease." But 

 I will wiliiugly admit that "D" will havo some 

 right to make such remarks if he can show us how to 

 save 7^0 out of (J^c this being an arithmetical feat 

 which I cannot hope to rival. But there is no use 

 in pursuing the subject. Everyone conversant with 

 the haud-niauufacture of tea, who has lately approach- 

 ed the subject, gives figures varying only from Gio to 

 7o per lb. for the three operations in which machinery 

 is available. The statem-nt that 7tc can bo suved 

 is, therefore, evidently erroneous, the dificreuce appear- 

 itig to be from 4^o to 5o, per lb. 



It makes no diflfareuce whence Mr. Owen took his 

 figures : he published them and is rospi-nsible for 

 t'lem. If Mr. Arm-trong made the original error, he 

 m.iy well be pardoned .'or it, in considerat.on of his 

 having written what I take leave to consider the beet 

 essay on planting matters wliicii hns appeared for 17 

 years p.vt. — Yours truly, ADAM'S PEAK._ 



* And tho acreage he does not weed, acting on the 

 priuciples he advocates. — Ed. 



