April i, 1891 .] 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
699 
beds, or of sinking of pita alongside. Meantime. 
\VQ have the fact before us that by such simple, 
not to say primitive processes — almost entirely hand, 
labour — the Sinhalese gemmers in Bakwana and 
Eatnapura have, from time immemorial, obtained 
precious stones, chielly sapphires, oatsoyes and rubies 
while still, uudoubtodly, there continue to be found 
many valuable stones of these descriptions.— We may 
have further information to give in our next. 
LININGS FOE TEA BOXES. 
The explanation afforded by our London Corres- 
pondent in his letter by yesterday’s mail will relieve 
the minds of Messrs. Anderson and Maitland Kirwan 
of auy feeling that the remarks we passed in our 
article headed ‘ Lead Linings for Tea Boxes ’ 
were of application to the patents these gentlemen 
severally represent. 
As regards Mr. MaHlanl Kirwan’s paper, it 
was of course, altogether excluded from the 
category of linings with which our remarks 
dealt. Beference was intended by that article solely 
to those forms of linings into the composition of 
which lead entered. Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s material 
has no su:h character. It is what seerns to bo 
known as a “ butter and it is of this lining 
of which Messrs. Wilson, Smithett & Oo. wrote iu 
such complimentary terms in their Produce 
Circular some time back. But it must be 
borne in mind that au important element of 
the question in the relative value of lin- 
ings of all descriptions is the one of cost and 
certainly we were not prepared for the revelation 
as to comparison between the paper and lead now 
afforded us. We had written previously under 
the belief that the “ paper ” would bo the 
cheaper lining of the two. We are told that the 
rate at which 4-ounce lead can be used is about 
Is 3d per chest, while Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s paper 
is quoted — according to our London correspondent 
—at Is 4id per 1001b. chest. For boxes holding a 
less quanthy our correspondent could obtain no 
quotation. But when wo refer back to the correspond- 
ence which arose in our columns in January last, wc 
find that the difference in cost was oven then 
fully apparent. It was stated by planters, without 
contradiction, that using 5-ounoa load which 
is now generally preferred, tne cost per chest was 
equal to from 72 to 83 cents on the estate against 
1s 4Jd for Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s paper in London, 
or probably a hguro not far short of a rupee on 
the estate. 
The same element — th it of cost — would 
have excluded from consideration the lead 
paper known as “ Clark’s Patent ” which 
Mr, T. 0. Anderson has advocated. For 
this we have from London no quoted price; 
but as the 4-ounce lead with which this paper 
is coated is equivalent in substance to that com- 
monly used tor lead linings pure and simple, we 
must presume that tho cost of adding that amount 
of lead to paper must involve a piace very mate- 
rially in excess of the use of a similar weight 
of lead when applied alone. That the eombina- 
tion emp'oyed under “ Clark’s Patent ’’ may be most 
useful, and that this fact may well justify the 
extra co^t its employment may involve, we do 
not deny; but this does not enter into the scope 
of our present contention. It will, of course, be 
acknowledged that this question of relative cest is 
one of primary importance to our planters. What 
wo want to obtain is a lining which, while equally 
efficacious in preserving tea as is a simple lead 
linin'', shall bo superior to it in economical result. 
This° according to' our present information is 
Bonroely obtained by either Clark’s load paper or 
Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s “butter” paper. Both o 
them, no doubt, are exceedingly efficient and reli- 
able, but they are both more costly than the 
material in ordinary present use. 
As for the tin foil paper, which we are told the 
remarks formerly made were more specially intended 
to apply, there seems little cause to doubt that 
it does not alford a reliable lining for tea boxes 
even though its cost may be below that of our 
present staple material. It would be poor economy 
to save a few penes on every chest of tea packed 
while having no assurance that its contents would 
reach the London market uninjured. As yet 
therefore — prioe for price being taken into account — 
it must, we fear, be admitted that we are without 
a satisfactory substitute for lead. Lead has been 
proved by long experience to be a very efficient 
material for packing tea in chests. We are re- 
minded, however, that Messrs. Wilson, Smithett &Co. 
would gladly see something substituted for it. For 
in the first place, even the best of sheet lead will 
only bear a certain amount of handling. The 
packets, it is asserted, which are retailed in lead, 
deteriorate if they are subjected to a long course 
of rough handling. Much “ pinohing ” — to use the 
term which seems to indicate the course of such 
rough handling — will, if long continued, crack the 
lead, and the contents of such packets will deteriorate 
greatly. But Messrs, Wilson, Smithett & Co. point 
out a second reason why some alternative to lead 
would be welcomed. This is the fact that, should 
the wood of the ohest be not properly seasoned, and 
consequently exude any sap, the result is to produce 
“ acetate of lead,” which not only destroys the 
lining but most seriously affects the tea enolosed. 
It is to such a cause that the “ oheesy ” smell 
and flavour of a large quantity of Ceylon and Indian 
teas returned upon the Brokers’ hands, has been 
attributed. The “butter” paper of Mr, Maitland 
Kirwan, if used, might obviate all chance of this 
particular cause of deterioration. Would it not 
then be possible for this material to be reduced 
in price ? Messrs. Wilson, Smithett & Co. have 
borne evidence to the protection it has afforded to 
teas sent home in it, and the objections raised to 
lead now referred to, do not attend its use. If a 
longer experience of this “ paper ” were to justify 
Messrs. Wilson and Smithatt’s conclusions, we have 
little doubt that a reduction in its cost would 
ensure for it a wide adoption by our planters. 
Meantime does not (he course of this discussion 
iu our columns and the many points which are 
stdl necessarily left open questions, show the 
need, in the planting interest, of that “ P. A, 
Sub-Committee” to enquire into and teat new 
inventions and economical processes, which wa 
suggested some time ago and which suggestion has 
been supported in our columns by not a few 
planters. If Mr. Giles Walker distinguished his 
year of office, by the establishment of such a 
Sub-Committee, we think he would do a good thing 
in the interests of the planting eommuuity. 
4 , 
Antique Diamond Dbills. — Mr. Flinders Petrie 
has originated the theory that the ancient Egyp. 
tians were familiar with the diamond drilling device. 
In his “Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh ” illustra- 
tions are given of samples of work which apparently 
show the use of jewel points in drilling and sawing. 
Various samples of this work are in his possession. 
He cites six examples in tho Bulak Museum and 
at Gizeh. Iu a temple at Gizeh there is found 
in ouo of the lintels of a door a drill hole with 
the core still sticking in it. A base of a tube 
drill hole is also found between the feet of a statue 
of Che ren nosv preserved in tho Bulak Museum. 
— Indiun Enyincer, 
