Ttiti TROPIC At AGRICtTLTTTSISf. 



[JUNE I, 1S85. 



to the planters of India and Ceylon. As it is however, 

 with extra taxation imminent, the tea duty raised and 

 consequent diminished deliveries, no great rise in prices 

 is likely. Had it been otherwise, the" year 1SS5 would 

 have been probably a bright one for the Indian and Ceylon 

 planters, and even as it is, if the worst conies to the 

 worst, I doubt prices being any lower than theyare now. 



The Russian tea duty has been raised from 73 to 03 

 copecks, i. c, equivalent from Is 5d to Is 9d per lb., but I 

 see not how this can, iu any sensible way, affect our market. 



But "on dit " that, like ourselves, wantiug money for 

 war purposes, the Chinese are about to increase the ex- 

 port duty on tea, making it equal to 4Jd instead of 3i-d. 

 This is a very serious increase, about 36 per cent, and 

 would make it harder than ever for the Chinese to soil 

 hero at prescut prices. Should it be done, Chinese im- 

 ports, I think, must decrease somewhat, and Indian in- 

 crease correspondingly. 



The population of- and the total consumption of tea 

 in the United Kingdom, the consumption per head, and 

 prices of tea iu bond iu past years, are all factors when 

 trying to look ahead. Some of these figures will interest 

 your readers. I have lately been thinking of collecting 

 them for, say, the last 30 years, and arranging them 

 in a tabular and readable form. When I do so, I will, 

 of course, send it. to you. The disjointed information 

 below is the first step. 



Thirty years .ago, population in the United Kingdom 

 was 28 millions. Total tea consumed 63J million pounds. 

 Consumption per head, say 2\ lb. Price" in bond Is 3d. 

 Duty Is 9d. 



Six years back (1878), population was over 35 millions. 

 Total consumption 15SJ millions. Consumption per head 

 4ilb. Price in bond Is 3Jd. Duty Od. 



"In the summer of last year (1884; the population of 

 the United Kingdom was estimated, at 35,952,000, i.e. close 

 on 36 millions. The total year's consumption was very 

 near 17G million pounds. This gives say lb. per head. 

 The average price of tea all round in bond last year was 

 HJd. The duty 0d per lb.* 



Two millions sterling is the estimated addition to the 

 revenue which would be realized by the extra 3d on tea 

 duty. The money, alas ! is wanted, thanks to the acts 

 of those in poorer, but any plan is better than squeezing 

 it out of the. poor as this will do. Lay the impost on 

 alcoholic drinks. Tax on marriages with a sliding scale 

 optional to all, the lowest a merely nominal sum, the 

 highest a good round one. How very many would only be 

 married on the highest scale, so the tax would be product- 

 ive ! Several taxes might be devised on the same principle, 

 viz., that of making the rich pay for the splendour they 

 have, affect, and cling to. One of the curses of England 

 is drink. The temperance movement is spreading, and 

 it should be bailed with delight and fostered. When 

 a better opportunity than the present ? Let those con- 

 tribute to these wars (Jingo in character) who drink, 

 who make a show, who can afford extra payments, but 

 spare the sober and industrious poor. 



Perhaps I am foolish to write in this style, for public 

 opinion iu Ceylon can scarcely affect the question, and all 

 interested in tea, myself iucluded, who object to this pro- 

 posed extra duty, may be considered as mindful of our inter- 

 ests as producers. Well, yes, true to some extent, but iu 

 this case our interests jump with humanity and common- 

 sense, and therefore deserve attention. 



Figures again, I rather weary of them, and what I am 

 about to mention is against my theory that the proposed 

 extra duty must in a measure affect the producer. The 

 said figures of the last fifteen years show, that, when all- 

 round price of tea in bond was about Is 5d, any fall in 

 price materially increased the consumption, but, when the. 

 said price had dropped to Is ad, any further fall did very 

 little that way, so little indeed, that, whatever increase is 

 shown may well be due to the enlarged population, or 

 other causes, and not to the fall in prices. The follow- 

 ing sets out what I mean : — 



* I have taken these figures for thirty years back 1878 

 aud 1884 from % statistical article in The Times. Hut, 

 though in the great leading paper, I have reason to doubt 

 if they are quite correct. Probably, however, they are 

 Hot very wide of the mark. 



Eise in Con- 

 Fall in Price iu Approximate sumption in 

 Periods. Pence. percentage approximate 



of fall. percentage. 



1800-74 17-8 to 17 4-5 10| 



1874-70 17 to 14-7 13-0 10i 



1879-84 14-7 to 11-8 19'8 3J 



As regards the yearly consumption per head of the 

 population in the DnUed Kingdom spoken of above, the 

 utmost we have reached yet is 5 lb. But it is curious to 

 see how much larger it is iu the colonies. I have not yet 

 got the figures for them later than 1878, but it respect- 

 ively stood in pounds as follows that year: — United King- 

 dom 406, Victoria 602, New South Wales 7'53, Queens- 

 land 9'lii, New Zealand 11*05. That is to say the deni- 

 zens of the colonies all drink far more tea than we do 

 here, in New Z"aland nearly three times more per«head 

 than we did that year! The multiplicity of public-houses 

 in England is the cause ; how unwise then to overtax <;he 

 harmless beverage tea. 



In a late article from Ceylon iu the Indian Planters' 

 Gar.ette I came across the following: — "A marked change 

 appears to have come over the ideas of tea planters as 

 to the distance at which their trees should be placed in 

 such low altitudes as the valley of which I am writing. 

 Formerly, aud at higher ranges, the distance was usually 

 5x6 and4ix-4i but now by common consent the distance 

 is made 31 / 3 or 3 :< 3J, and it is even a question whether 

 3x3 might not be adopted with advantage, theobjectbe- 

 ing to cover the ground as quickly as possible. If this 

 is not done, it is felt thaf^cars and years of sun and 

 rain pouring down on the soil must have an injurious effect 

 upon it." '* 



My experience is not in accord with the above. China 

 tea may certainly be planted 3x3. Hybrids too, I doubt 

 not, will give more profit the first few years at 3i x 3, 

 but I think they would thus be iound too close eventually. 

 The object should be to plant not for the present alone 

 but for the future, and 4ix4 cannot be too much forjgood 

 hybrid plants. What the writer means by " years and years 

 of sun and rain pouring dowu upon the soil having an 

 injurious effect upon it "I do not perceive. I supposohe 

 means that the soil being left exposed to the sun and rain 

 for years would deteriorate. But I never heard before 

 that sun and rain acted prejudicially on soil. I was sur- 

 prized to see the above, for otherwise the article is very good 

 and well written. 



Whatever the distance decided on, it should, iu my opinion, 

 be more one way than the other, so that some clear space 

 be givon between theliues. What used to be called " hedge 

 planting," that is, that the trees should touch each other 

 in the lines, aud be well apart between the lines, had its 

 advocates in my day. For this plan with hybrids ox 31; or 

 5h x 3 might do. But, while the plan soemed to me good, 

 I cannot speak from experience of it. Another and a sens- 

 ible plan proposed (I speak not from experience of it) was 

 to plant hjbrids^H x 4, and when the time came they 

 were too clo'e'to root out every alternate plant iu the 24 

 line, thus leaving the eventual distances 5 x 4. A large yield 

 would thus bo got iu the early years, aud room for the 

 trees to develop later. I always thought well of the idea. 

 I forget whether I or others started it, but that is beside 

 the question. EDWARD MONEY. 

 « 



Coffee and Tea. — A ioturu has lately leeu published 

 of the areas under tea and coffee cultivation in 

 India for the year 1883. Regarding the first, an 

 interesting comparison is made between the figures in 

 the year 1875-76 and those in the year under notice. 

 Thus it appears that in the foim-r year in Assam 

 and Caohar S7.307 acres yielded 20,028,890 lb. of tea, 

 and in 1883 189,453 acres yielded 52,171.2001b. In 

 Bengal 26,378 acres produced 4 941,226 lb., and in 

 18S3 49,753 acrfs produced 10,703,139 lb. In tho 

 North- Wett Prr.vinoca 4,303 acres gave 031.1S2 lb. 

 as against 7.S19 acres giving 1,202,147 lb. In the 

 Punjab 4,246 acres gave 679,949 lb. as against 7,964 

 acres yielding 1,300,010 lb. In Madras 2,392 acres 

 produced 220.070 lb. as compared with 5,423 acres 

 producing 529,4901b.— Madras Moid. 



