April i, 1 B 91 .J 
THP TROPSCAL AQRICULTURSST. 701 
LINING OF TEA CHESTS: L&AD VS. FAFER, &C. 
Every effort has been made by me this week to 
assure myself respecting the fullness of the grounds 
upon which the criticisms passed by me in a former 
letter of mine on the substitutes proposed for the 
lead lining of tea chests were based, and for the 
result to which — as set out in your article of 
comment on the subject — you, with perfect justice, 
held me to be responsible. I sought in the first 
place an interview with two old Ceylon planters 
now at home, both of them men of great local 
experience in Ceylon and both very largely engaged 
in dealing with your teas in London, I can best 
communicate to you their views by giving you as 
nearly as possible the words of the elder and more 
experienced of my two interviewers, both of whom 
— were it authorized to me to mention their names 
— you would acknowledge to be among the highest 
possible authorities on such a subject. The senior 
of these remarked to me : — “ I have read all that 
you and the Oservet wrote on this subject of 
lining tea chests, and I may express my fullest con- 
currence in anything that has been written by you 
both. Stick to your guns : don’t you be driven 
from the position taken up by you. The particular 
lining you saw — and which we have all seen — 
penetrated by innumerable small holes is 
what is known as a tinfoil paper. None of us 
will ever use it again, despite the fact that its first 
cost is much below the cost of 4 ounse lead. I 
see Mr. Maitland Kirwan complains of the remarks 
made by the Observer. He certainly has no right 
to do so, for his lining is not a lead paper at all, 
and your remarks were confined to linings of that 
character. What Mr. Maitland Kirwan proposes is 
the ‘butter’ paper formerly shown you. We have 
nothing whatever to say against the use of this 
material save that its cost is higher than that of 
pure lead, which I use at about Is 3d the chest, 
and this fact tells naturally against it, as it does 
not give better results than lead. Then as to Mr. 
Anderson’s lead paper, that known as Clark’s 
patent, the Observer should surely have recollected 
letters written to it by some planter who has used 
it pointing cut that the cost of it was very greatly 
in excess of simple lead. This must naturally 
follow from the fact that Clark's patent adds to the 
cost of the 4-ounoe lead that of backing it with paper. 
It is no doubt capital stuff, but the cost ex- 
cludes it from the category of linings respecting 
which you wrote, as these included only those 
from the use of which an absolute economy as 
compared with that of lead was to be anticipated. 
What wo want is a cheap substitute for lead. The 
last answers every needful purpose, and we are not 
likely to adopt any alternative material in lieu of 
it which will involve extra cost. In my opinion 
Messrs. Anderson and Maitland Kirwan, when wri- 
ting in complaint of the Observer article, should 
not have left the higher price of their materials 
without mention. The fact that they did so did 
not enable general readers to fully undersland 
the case.” 
Immediately after terminating the interview of 
which the results have above been given, I went 
and saw both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Smithett on 
the subject. Those gentlemen told mo they had 
read all you had published relative to it. They 
kindly looked up their own circular in which they 
had praised Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s lining, and they 
said that, although their experience of it had fully 
justified what they had written, they know no- 
thing as to the cost of it. The teas con- 
signed to them and packed in this butter 
paper had arrived in admirable condition, and 
they should be very pleased if fuller cx- 
perienoe should justify the supersession by 
it of lead. “ For, ” Mr. Smithett remarked, 
“although we do not believe that the con- 
tact of lead with tea is in any appreciable degree 
injurious, there is no doubt that if unseasoned 
wood has been used for making the boxes a lead 
lining is likely to bo a very dangerous one. When we 
lately complained of the ‘ cheesy ’ smell and flavour 
of a quantity of Ceylon teas received by us, we had 
them submitted to analysis, and it was found 
that they were strongly impregnated with aoetate 
of lead. This was the result to the action of the 
acid of the wood on the lining, and it had eaten 
away the latter and had fouled the tea to such 
an extent that after sale we had a very large 
quantity of the chests returned to us, and a very 
heavy lose had to be borne when finally obtain- 
ing a purchaser for it. What we want, therefore, 
is fo see lead superseded altogether. As long as it 
is liable to action by acid from the wood the 
danger mentioned will always be present.” 
After leaving Messrs. Wilson and Smithett I 
proceeded to call on Mr. Maitland Kirwan. Un- 
fortunately that gentleman was out, but to my 
request in his office for a quotation of the 
price of the “ butter” paper linings it was 
given me as Is 4id, for a 100 lb. chest. On 
my asking the price for half-chests it was 
replied to me that they had no quotation for the 
lesser sizes. This information was confirmatory 
of what had been mentioned to mo in the inter- 
view first recorded. You will see that the question 
resolves itself finally into this, viz. that there 
may be efficient substitutes for lead, but that none 
of them meet what my letter st.ated to be desired 
i. e. a substitute for it which should be less costly. 
When my letter to you was written neither Clark’s 
patent nor Mr. Maitland Kirwan’s paper were in 
my mind, and only the second had ever been under 
my own observation. 
UNITED planters’ COMPANY OF CEYLON 
LIMITED: £2-50,000 capital. 
There has been a “ mighty big thing” in con- 
nexion with Ceylon started this week, and this 
has been done so quietly that even Mr. Leake, 
on my mentioning it to him this week, told me he 
had not heard even a whisper about it before my 
telling him of it. The foliowing referring to this 
new enterprise is extracted from the Investors’ 
Guardian of Saturday last : — 
United Pl4ntees’ Comp.vnv op C'eyldn, Li.mited. 
This company was registerol on the 3rd instant with 
a capital of £:i50,000, in j£10 shaiMS, to acquire pro- 
perties in Ceylon, and to carry on the business of tea 
and coffee-planters generally. The subscribers are : — 
Shares. 
*H. Brooks, St. Peter’s-ebambers, Oornhill, 
merchai.t ... ... ... ... 1 
Hy. Brooks, St. Peler’i-obambers, Cornhill, 
mediant ... .. .. .. 1 
**H. T. Brooks, Redlands, Upper Long Ditton, 
Surrey, merchant ... ... ... 1 
*J. M. Bousttad, Wes'.field-lodgo, Surbiton, 
merchant ... .. ... ... 1 
A. O. Shrroft, 29, Groombridge-road, South 
Hackney, desk ... ... ... ... 1 
I. D. Tarr, 7, Listou-road, Cl.ipham. S. W. 1 
F. Pear.-!, 18, Leigham-lano, Tulse-hill, S. W., 
dork ... ... ... ... ... 1 
The number of dirodors is not to bo less than 3, 
nor more than 7 ; the fir.st being the subscribers denoted 
by an asierisk ; quaUlicatiou, £500 in stock or shaves; 
remunernti.-n to be determined by general meeting. 
Solicitors, Messrs. Parker, Gunott and Parker, St. 
Michad’s Roclory, Oornhill, E. O. 
Cal ing the other day at the office of the soli- 
citore to the Company, it was told iffc that no 
