The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-01-17 00:00:00

FARILERS' CLUB.

The subject nf 'Otte v. Corn and Malt," introduced
by Mr. Robert Darnen,of Dorchester, formed the subject
of di-cnr.inn for the Dorchester Farmers' Club at their
. . . .

fourth int eting of the present session, held at the
Antelope Hotel on S.turday evening. The chair was
taken by the President of the Club, G. J. Wood, Eq.,

of Adn'iiston Hall, but the attendance of members was
not so lsrce as generally, attributable no doubt to the
inclement state of the wather. After transacting the
preliminary business connected with the club, Mr.
Damon ably delivered, extempore, the following

LECTURE.
CHAIRXAN AND GENTLEMEN,—In introducing
the subject thin evening, I cannot help fearing that I
shall not interest you in the way I should wish to do
upon ell public occasions of this kind, but you will take
the will for the deed, I am sure. The subject is "Cattle
versus Corn and Malt." In the first place, it may be
supposed that I shall attempt to show the relative ad-
vantage of feeding cattle and of growing corn. But
this is not my intention for a moment. It would be
presumptuous on my part, in the presence of
practical men, to attempt to chow you that you can
gain more by one system than by the other, and there-
fore I shall not attempt to argue the question in this
way. I rather wish to allow you this evening, the
fallacy of the advice given by many people—members
of Parliament and others—at agricultural meetings,
and indeed by all classes of the community since the
advent of Free-Trade in this country, that it is desirable
for you to fatten cattle instead of growing corn. I
therefore wish to show you the effect of acting upon
such advice would not be at all to your interest nor to
the general advantage of the people. And first I
believe the price of meat, if you act upon that principle,
would be so reduced, that you would fail in the object
you have in view. Therefore, gentlemen, lam anxious
to show you that it would be a mistake to follow such
advise. I will endeavour to show you afterwards
that it is more the duty of county members to
support your interest in the House of Commons,
than to give you advice of that kind ; but especially
shall I show you, in the latter pert of my remarks
that I have to make in reference to the Malt-Tax,
their duty towards you is quite of a different character.
You are all aware that in the advice they give you from
time to time.they cannot understand as well Ilk yourselves
respecting your individual purettits ; for you ought to be
better judges than they as to whether it would pay
better to fatten cattle than to grow corn. I shall there- I
fore, in the first place, call your attention to 11001111
remarks of a gentleman who is an eminent member of
an adjoining county, Sir Lawrence Palk, in Devonshire,
who, after making a good after-dinner speech, said,
"The long and short of what I wish to imprese upon
agriculturists is this, that they must look for the future
more to produce good beef and mutton than in growing
aria! crops."
Now, gentlemen, you know as men of business, that
pricew must depend upon the supply and demand, and
if you produce • larger quantity the prices must lower
in consequence. The price of meat for some years peat,
as you are aware, has been, I may say, the sheet anchor
of the farmer • but, gentlemen, that demand has been
met by the producers of meat, although prioes have
been high, and I admit have been remunerative; it has
been met by you, for we must not forget the expensive
means which have been used in fattening these cattle,
and those enterprising men who have done so have only
met with a fair return for it. I wink, therefore to show
you, if this advice should be acted upon of Sir Lawrence
Palk and other gentlemen who give such advioe, what
would be the effect if it was acted upon in general
The answer seems to be a oore— sense one—the price
the extent of

ef meat must be reduced, and to . ... Bay
Id. or 3d. per lb.,and I believe myself most firmly that
it would eouvert the present fair profit into a positive
loss. (Hear, hear.) Some oontend that an increased
supply would be met by an increased consumption;
but it is quite evident that, unless you can reduce the
pries of meat, you cannot increase the consumption,
not in am equal ratio, to say the most of it ; and not only
that, but the price of meat must be governed by the
consuming capabilities of the people. If it was possible,
for instance, to get meat at Is. per lb., I would ask you
if the high prioe would not in a very short time
be reduced in consequeme of the people not being able
to buy meat at such a price, therefore in causing less
consumption it would cure itself. I know if it was
possible to raise the wages of the labourers and artisans
of this country to the extent of, say 25 or 30 per cent.,
it is quite possible the price of meat, butter, and cheese,
would rise in proportion. But, gentlemen, wages, like
everything else, is a marketable article, and you cannot
raise the price of wages with a view to their being
marketable articles; therefore it may take years to in.
crease the price of wages. I have no doubt myself that
in the course of years wages will so advance in this
country, if we continue prosperous, that the price el
meat will increase in value in proportion as wages
increase ; for you will find the artisan and labour-
ing population do not labour to save, but labour to live,
and live well if they can ; and therefore, it is only a
question of time, but it must be a long time before any
revolution of that kind can take place. I
In reference to the price of meat, allow me to call
your mtention to a committee of the House of Commons,
which sat in 1834 or 1835, to inquire into the agricul-
tural distress at that time prevailing. At that com-
mittee many eminent farmers, and some of the beat
farmers in the eastern counties, gave evidence,
and the evidence went to show that they were
in the habit of stall-feeding largely, but they
had to meet a loss upon the animals they sold stall-fed.
Their evidence fully corroborated esch other, who said
that the loss upon those animals so fed was from kl to
£2 per head each, and they gave roots in the bargain.
This was at a time when meat was only 6d. per lb.' and
you will agree with me that at fattening meat at 6d.
per lb. your loss would be 'something like it, and you
would sacrifice your roots in feeding animals. But these
gentlemen contended, notwithstanding the loss which
they sustained upon feeeing animals and supplying
the market at such prices, that they regained their
profit by the value of the muck or manure
which they produced. Now, gentlemen, muck of itself
will not pay, "however pretty the muck that oan be made
of it ." fattening must be followed by corn. Every
practical farmer knows the necessity of a rotation of
erops. Growing roots alone would never pay, as many
people contend we should do; you cannot afford to
sacrifice, as a Norfolk farmer contended he could do,
his root crops for the sake of the corn and muck which
were to follow, for that, as reasonable men, you know
depends upon the value of the produce hereafter.
I will now endeavour, gentlemen, to show you the
effect of depending upon a foreign supply of corn to
feed thellmassee of this populous country. Firet I will
call your attention to the relative supplies of foreign
and British produce. Since Free-Trade became the
law of this country, during the first 12 years we
imported about, in round numbers, 5,000,000 quarters of
wheat a year; but from 1860, when a worse crop was
grown in England than had been the case for the last
half century, from that time to 63 we imported
10,000,000 quarters a year—about sufficient to feed
half the population of this country. It is strange
to say, too, that during these years prices were reduced,
and went down some 25 per cent. But this, gentlemen,
I believe, was more in consequence of the American
war than from any other cause. They sent us their
corn as being the only country which could receive it,
and pay them their money, and from the effect of their
own necessities. Now, gentlemen, supposing, for
instance, we 'should he unfortunately engaged in war
with that country, and that supply of corn should
cease, what would be the consequence? If we should
be as well engaged in war with our near neighbour, that
great naval and military country, what would be the
effect on the price of corn? Some people argue that
war has ceased, and that people are so civilised that
war is impossible, but the past history of the world is
the best criterion for the future. You will see we
have had intervals of peace as long as the present,
and we have had wars afterwards. As an English-
man I cannot help looking with some alarm at the great
preparations now making in this country and other
countries for war. Sooner or later war must come, and
I believe mnst sincerely it is the duty of a paternal
Government to do all they can to grow food for the
people of the country; for it must be that whenever
the war will come—for come it will sooner or later, God
knows when—the greatest question of the day will be
the feeding question—the feeding of the people. If
we have been depending for a quarter or half of the
food of the people of this country from foreign countries,
I would say this, it is the absolute duty of the Govern-
ment to promote and protect agriculture. We all
know what/ the effect of war has upon prices, for only
in the years 1854 and 1855, during the time of the
Russian war, and during a time when we had good crops,
prices advanced from 60s. to 85s. per quarter, just
double the present prices, and this whilst we had good
crops at home, and this at a time when we were fight-
ing not happily against France but with France, and
when France and England were the mistresses of the
seas of the world; when there was nobody to compete
with them, and so far as regards our importation t ere
was nothing whatever to prevent it. But even at that
time, with good root crops, wheat selling from 80s.
to 855. per quarter what would be the effect in the
event of a great war unfortunately arising? It may
happen that that great country may fight against WI
rather than with us. Therefore it is again, I say, the
positive dritY of the Legislature of this country to
protect and encourage the home produce of the British
agriculturist.
But, gentlemen, I do not argue for the sake of the
agriculturist alone, but for the sake of the whole com-
munity, :it is a national question. Ido not argue for
the sake of any pecuniary advantage arising to the'
agriculturists, but to supply the people of thili
country with food of home produce is the qnestion:
Gentlemen, one word with regard to the effect on agri-
cultural labour. If the foreigner is to feed the
people of this country with their bread food, end if the
system proposed by some men not well informed on the
object to grow almost all roots instead of corn was to
be (serried out, whioh I do not believe possible, the welt
thing must be that the arable land of this countr7 must

that

-
saY, would become of those ,deenesibuyieeplis stk.
es:witty—the agricultural latiesserat Stli know,
as matioal men, that every 100 awe" eisrelie bind will
fl employment for font men but you were to
cokvert that land into pasture, one man would then do
the work of four. Therefore, you would throw out of
employ a vast number of people by that system, and
u ustly so.
'Women, I feel my remarks will touch a little upon
polities in this short address I am giving you, and it
shall be very short I promise you, bemuse I want all
the dismission upon it. I have endeavoured to show you
the effect of following Sir Lawrence Palles advice ou this
matter; but I wish to show you, gentlemen what
might be the duty of county members in respect to
these questions, and with regard to your inteenwils
generally. In doing so Ido not for one mollenty
intend to screen or leave out the oon%tituenta of county
members—yogi yourselves, gentlemen, and your clam
generally, and especially with regard to the duty, whisk
your worthy chum= has enlarged upon, with regard
to the Malt Tax. Thetis part of my subject, and you
will excuse me going into the matter. To men wile
have fully made up their minds, I do not intend to
argue the question upon all its merits—it would he
wasting your time in doing so. But I cannot help
saying this, that if any farmer has any misgivings,
previously, I think he mud now begin to esei MSS egr
demands upon that subject are just and reasonable. if
be look at the price of barley he will find that noteC
unremunerative—he will fluddlowever much he Ma,
grew, however much he may improve his soil, be astili
not get any oorrespooding advantage from it. Irk
growing raalting barley, for instance, jib, grew POori
30 per cent. less one the wintry, he would get • muck]
law prim. bjie grAr. asksithias aore free

ulii#7int• I