J-AN 1, 19D2.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
501 
effectually barred the way to information 
about the Hope^vell Tea C )'apany, through the 
promotion of .vhich tliis India and Ceylon Com- 
pany has been ot^arly mine I. Its own history is 
bill e'lougli. B^i^iiining in 1896 with a profit of 
£12,657 it ended in November, 1900, with a loss of 
£2 911, ami butween tliese dates profits boobed up 
and down like corks in a toy fountain. Prices for 
tea and rupees had something to do with tiie 
decline in profits, but agency and working charges 
more, and, in fact, the^e charges have had a good 
deal to do with the determination of some inde- 
pendent shareholders to get at the bottom of 
things. They do not seem to relish the idea of 
existing merely for the glory and gains of Sir John 
Muir and his doughty retainers. 
This committee has found that during the ex- 
istence of the company the amount paid in com- 
mission alone to M^'ssrs P K Buchanan & Co , the 
agents in London, and Messrs Finlay, Muir & Co., 
the agent in Calcutta and Colombo, amounted to 
£11,141 or over 4j per cent on the gross proceeds 
of all the tea sold, It rightly says that his 
percentage is excessive and out of all proportion 
to the results attained. But has it really got to 
the bottom of these charges with tliis statement? 
We note, for instance, that "a new teahouse" 
was to be erected on the Mookham Estate, and 
that a variety of materials was forwarded for 
this purpose, although it was not carried out. 
Some of the articles were disposed of at cost, but 
" the girders and pillars still remain unused on 
theground." What we should like to ask is. Was 
DO commission received by the agents upon those 
purchases, apart from thatpaid by the tea company? 
No insinuation is made ; we only ask the question 
because of facts that have come to our knowledge 
in other directions. Why was the teahouse ordered? 
The Calcutta and Colombo charges are very heavy, 
says the committee, and apparently the company's 
agents have recogniseil this by ban ling back a 
trifle of money, just to prevent friction, we suppose. 
In illustration we are told that the customary and 
PROPER CHARGES FOR SHIPPING TEA IN 
COLOMBO, 
including harbour dues, is "one-half rupee cent'' 
per lb (does this mean per cent ?), whereas Messrs. 
Finlay, Muir & Co. are in the habit of charging 
"three-quarters rupee cent" per lb exclusive of 
harbour dues. V^heu this was brought to the 
notice of the great house it refunded £165 3s 4d 
for 1900, being the amount of the harbour dues, 
but on condition that the company paid the 
visiting agents' fees for inspecting the estates. 
This is thoroughly " Muirish," and exquisite in 
its way. But the accounts for the year 1898 and 
1899 showed harbour dues and cartage amounting 
respectively to £315 and £347, and these sums do 
not seem to have been handed back, while the 
accounts for the preceding two years "cannot be 
found " at all any more. The committee thinks 
that Messrs. Finlay, Miiir & Co., should be " ap- 
proached " by the directors, that is to say by the 
nominees of the said Fin ay, Muir & Co. to see 
whether these moneys could not also be handed 
back. It is very meeti of it, in its place we should 
be inclined to try the Court of Session. 
Oae of the most curious revelations in this 
tascinating report is the story of what the 
Scotch would call the 
"INTROMISSIONS" OF THE ANGLO AMERICAN 
DIRECT TEA TRAUI.VG CO., LIMITED, 
ftUOtber of the Finlay-Muir corporations, as ^ 
handy agent in the commission-earning line. It 
seems that the Anglo-American Company is one 
of the Ea^t India and Ceylon Company's best 
customer-, and that the tea it buys is shipped 
direct to the United States via Hong Kong. It 
consequently never comes to London at all, and 
is in no way subject to London charges ; never- 
theless the London agents take the commission 
on the sales, and have done very handsomely 
by the business. This portion of the report had, 
we think, best be given in the investigating 
committee's own words, together with the results. 
It is a most interesting and curious revelation. 
The prices for the tea so sent are fixed by the 
Londoa agents' tea-man with tho assistance of an 
independent broker after valuing samples sent to 
London, A caloulation seems to have been made on 
each consignment of the amoant of freight, insurance, 
warehouses chirges and sale expenses which would 
have been incurred if the tea had been sent to London, 
and the amount so ascertained has from time to 
time been allowed to the Angio- American Direct Tea 
Trading Company ; bat Messrs. P K Buchanan & Co., 
the London agents, have charged in their accounts 
against the company full i-ommission on the grosg 
amount of the tea sold before making any such 
allowances, as if such tea had actually passed through 
their hands and been sold in London. 
^ s. d. £ a. d. 
was allowed jn 
sales amounting to 11,. "159 5 9 
„ ,, 12,278 11 4 
, 12,334 19 0 
» „ „ 15,910 17 3 
„ „ „ 12,743 17 9 
In 1896 769 
16 
3 
1897 986 
16 10 
1898 1,092 
18 
9 
1899 1,085 
4 
6 
I90J 1,056 
6 
1 
£4,991 
2 
5 
Then the 
£6i,S.il 11 1 
HOPE\TELL TEA COMPANY COMES UNDiiR REVIE\T. 
It also is a product of the fertile commission- 
distilling energy of Sir John Muir and 
his associates. This company bought some of 
the East India and Ceylon Company's land, 
but did not pay for it in cash. On the contrary, 
the East India and Ceylon Company had to take 
payment in shares, and to subscribe also for 
further shares, and part of these shares carried 
a liability of £67,000. of which £63,300 has been 
called up, thus stripping the vendor company of 
money instead of strengthening its resources. 
And the Hopewell Company seems to be so com- 
pletely in the hands of Finlay Muir & Co., that 
no accounts at all are issued, nor have any shares 
been allowed to get into Independent hands, so 
that the all-sucking Glasgow firm just piously 
smiles at those who want to know things. All 
insight into the accounts has been refused 
to this committee, which declares that 
its report has been "greatly delayed" 
by the difficulty in obtaining information. It 
has, however, found out that a loss of nearly 
£22,000 has been incurred by the Hopewell enter- 
prise, although how is not revealed, and't also 
seenn to have unearthed the fact that a circular 
letter issued by Messrs. P R Buchanan & Co., 
London agents, to the shareholders of the East 
India and Ceylon Company, accompany a pros- 
pectus soliciting subscriptions for Hopewell shares, 
made a statement not at the time true. The 
statement was to the effect that the directors 
had at thit date entered into an agrement to 
form to Hopewell Tea Company, a copy 
of which agreement, the circular stated, could 
be seen at tho office of the East India and 
Ceylon Company, and the terms of which 
agreement it went on to recite. There wa 
