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

his extra quantity. So far as regards the grinding
value of the barley it is quite certain he cannot
afford to grow it for grincling purposes. At this
moment the inferior grinding barleys of Europe, Turkey,
and Asia, can be brought into this country at a much
less price than we can grow them, and can be of no ad-
vantage whatever. I shall be prepared to supply any
gentleman in this room with grinding barley, weighing
501bs. a bushel, at a guinea per quarter. I should be
happy to take orders for 5,000 or 10,000 quarters—good
grinding barley—at that price. If you feel an
interest in that way give me your orders. If you get a
large crop of barley in this country the brewers,
positively, get all the advantage. The public pay the
same price for their beer, and not a farthing less do
they pay. (Hear, hear.) If you get • large crop of
wheat in this country the people get the advantage of
having cheap bread, which is always a blessing; but
whatever the crop of barley, the people never get any
advantage. It all flows into the capacious pockets of
the brewers. I don't blame the brewers for a moment ;
. . _

-
but there it will flow, unless you and your representa-
tives bestir yourselves to alter the system, and unless
you would bestir yourselves in a way to be represented
as other classes of the community are represented.
If you wish to get a repeal of this tax do not
be satisfied with your members saying to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, " Oh ! Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, my constituents want a repeal of the
Malt-Tax, but do not inconvenience yourself about it. I
meet them very seldom—only about MCC &Year—at jolly
agricultural dinners or at election times, but do not
inconvenience yourself about it, It is quite true
you boasted, Mr. Chan,ellor of the Exchequer, in
your speech on the budget last year, that during
the last six years you have taken off taxes
to the amount of I:9,000,000 a.year. But my
constitutents say they have not had any benefit from
them—none worth naming; they have not hadany benefit
from them ; they say rather our agricultural burdens
have increased. Ido not know whether it lea fact, but

_
they say so." This is what such a member would say.
Now, gentlemen, I feel it is time for you to bestir your-
selves, and say whether this is fair or not. It is for
you to say, "You have taken these duties off of tea,
sugar, wine, and paper, but I feel no interest in those
things, except in a very small ratio, a very small degree
indeed." But we want gentlemen, so it seems to me,
men regardless of all party feeling to demand justice at
their hands. I would ask you, gentlemen, is the next
great surplus to be flittered away in the same way, and
you have no benefit from it? This is a question you
have to ask yourselves, whether it shall be so or not.
Aocording to present appearances there will be, as have
bees the case for some time past, another great
surplus to be disposed of this year. This will be
flittered away as surpluses have been flittered away
before, amongst people that ask for it, and arnongst
people who have the most influence with the Chancellor
. . _ . .

. .
of the Exchequer and the Government of the day,
whoever that Government may he. This is a matter of
course. As I have said before, Ido not blame members
more than I blame their constituents respecting that.
Bat I would ask you what Manchester would do under
similar circumstances? Would not they put themselves
in communication with their members, and if those
members of theirs did not satiafactorily represent their
opinions, would they not change them? Most assuredly
yes. But, gentlemen, at Manchester they have
a Chamber of Commerce. It ia a well-known fact that
the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester carried Free'
trade, and you give them credit for doing so. But
where is the Chamber of Commerce for agriculture?
What interest have you? How are you represented in
these matters? But, gentlemen, I am coming to the
pith of the matter. I am coming to the post-scrip
as the ladies' say, which contains the most im-
portant point in their letter. I would suggest, if not
Chambers of Commerce, that we should have Agricultural
Boards in this country. That we should put ourselves—
as agricultural boards—in communication with our
representatives, because they themselves are quite at a
loss to know what we require unless we tell them, and
I believe no Agricultural Boards could so easily be
formed as those formed out of Farmers' Clubs. They
are supposed, and I believe do, most thoroughly
represent the agricultural views of the districts in
which they are formed. You may find people who
sneer and say "I do not belong to one," but I say
plainly, they represent their views and opinions upon
these matters. I see a proof of this can be found in
every discussion ; indeed, I saw it in the last
lecture which was no ably delivered in this room.
Many men adopt the opinions enunciated here.
Lately a man said to me, " I shall not do so
and so until I hear what the leoturer says on
the subject." And therefore, however, much aloof
individuals may keep, and always will keep, for we
cannot ala aye be of the same opinion, that we do re-
present the agricultural opinions in oor clubs and
districts I have no doubt whatever, and that we shall
continue to do so I have no doubt. And if in that
position, I would ask can we not go further, and put
ourselves, as time and occasion may require, into com-
munication with our members' and tell them what we
want. They, I believe, would be equally satisfied with
ourselves, for they are kept, as a rule, as we should be
without such societies as these, in the dark, as to our
views, because they only get our opinions and views at
an agricultural after dinner meeting, and it is a
mere nothing they get there. But we as agri-
cultural clubs can tell them what we mean in
the matter. In talking of politics I would say this,
that as regards party politics I have been a member of
Farmers' Clubs for many years; but I must say this,
that I have nevia heard one subject introduced of a
party nature. I believe that they have scrupulously
avoided party subjects, and I have no reason to be
afraid of giving our opinions fearlessly upon all subjects
which relate to agricultural polities. I know that the
fashion of the day, gentlemen, is in a great measure to
ignore agricultural claims. I do not know bow it'
but such is the case. It is the fashion in the House of
Commons and out of it, and we seem to have lost our
interest in the body politic of the country, but such
is the case. I believe most firmly that we have.
I do say that the manufacturing interest haws
claims, and have exercised their wisdom, I may call it,
In advancing their own schemes; and projects before the
powers that be in this country, that they have been
heard whilst we have not, however, just our claims
may have been. But there is no reason why we should
not insist upon justice on our side, and we ask for
nothing more.
You are aware in France, gentlemen, that there the
Government seems especially to take great care of its
agricultural interest:, and they have a Minister specially
devoted to the interest of agriculture; and you may
have also seen, within the past few days, a large
circular, and a very sensible one too, addressed
to the people of France, in reference to French
agriculture at the present moment. The agricul-
turists of France complain that the prises are so
low that they are losing their money, and if men
lose their money they squeak in any part of
the world wherever they might be. They com-
plain of the prices being so low and blame the
Minister for it in a very sensible way. He says it is not
so, it may be from your good crops, or from the good
crops of England, but the facts with regard to France
are these, that we only import—and have imported
within the last two or three years of these low prices at
three per cent, of our consumption, and we have in the
same time exported more than we have imported. But,
gentlemen, in this country the case is entirely different.
As I have shown you we import from a quarter to a half
of our consumption—of the'breacl of the people of this
ciountry ; and therefore it is quite of a different character.
This ought to be sufficient to satisfy any body of people
that we are not in a safe position to import a larger
quantity than this, especially as I have said before in
the time of war, come when it may.
I do not mention this large importation which we
receive into this country, for a moment, with a view of
wishing to reverse that system which has been
established here, and firmly established, within the last
few years—Free-trade I mean; neither do we want a
Minister of Agriculture here, but what we want is
freedom to grow untaxed the natural production of our
own soil. (Cheers.) The manufacturers argued, and
with irresistible reason too, that the various circum-
stances of coal in this island of ours—this beautiful
island, with its enterprising people—that we
are so adapted to manufacture for the world with all
our advanfages of coal and iron which tend to make the
county so great, and we should become a great manu-
facturing people. And therefore with this irresistible
argument they got Free-Trade into the country, and as it
appears rightly so. You do not find a single man who
wishes to reverse this principle. Whatever the
feelings of individuals may be it is of no use. It is
a matter of fact, and facts, as you all know' are
stubborn things which you cannot contend against. It
is lissome the law of the country, and you cannot resist
it; but whilst you give the manufacturers this privilege,
as I must call it, we in the country demand Free-trade.
We demand Free-trade for the growth of one, I may
say, of the greatest productions, if not so great as wheat
—barley. For if you of Manchester, and you of the great
North of England are manufacturers for the world, we as
agriculturists cannot see in all fairness,but that we are
entitled to produce what the soil and climate of the
country are eminently and practically adapted for.
Why put • restriction upon our production if they un-
tax theirs? We only say this in fairness; we ask it as
no favour whatever. I believe it is perfectly absurd
to say that any favour is asked, for it is only • matter
of justice we ask as the rest of Englishmen. When
we say that we want no favours we have been told that
we have had some little favours. And what are they,
gentlemen? One of the greatest privileges is, that our
shepherd's dog is allowed to jog along free of tax; and
the next, I believe, is that the master of a farm saves
about the game in'havinsi no duty to pay upon his fire
insurance. But these are puny privileges; we never
asked for them; we do not want them; we only want
'to be put in the same position as the other part of the
• community. It is difficult how such a legislation could
i hava taken piece. I can only fanny it was in a lax time
of Parliament—in the dog-days, when smolt legislation
'woad pass. I once happened to be in the House of
Commons in the dog-days, and there I saw one of your
senators lying on his back at full length, with his hat
Over his face, much in the same way as you gee a
limy man in a hay-field. It meet, I think,have been at
slims edogwhencLatheughlegialteoatiivone towoattpnia:hitgiuotf
the
Site
—we only A int fairness. We would say to the
'people of Manchester, or wherever Free-traderg may be,
{do not keep it all to yourselves, do not let your
!sympathies run all in favour of foreign produce. They
!gay charity begins at home, and I would also say let
I justice find a resting plate there.
' Gentlemen, Ido not mean to keep you much longer.
II trust I have said enough to show the fallacy of sub-
stituting feeding cattle for the growth of corn in this
country; and 'if we left that road and that principle,
i bow dangerona it would be in caise of war, not only to
i the growers of corn but to the community at large. I
!trust, gentlemen, I have thrown out a hint with
'regard to your duties respecting your agricul-
tural members; that there should be • source
of communication opened up whereby you may in
110011 way or other communicate with them from
Ilium to time, and that your opinions should be
;thoroughly represented in the House of Commons as
I every other class of the community is represented.
This, I ana sure, is due to you, and if you only demand
it—demand it as your right as Englishmen ins great
cease—you are safe to get it. (Applause.)
In the course of the dismission which ensued en the
keturer's remarks, Mr. J. G. iiOYZE said the question
was, whether they should make more by the present
means of farming, or more by making it a meat
country. He thought the farmers of our day would
soon find out that if meat growing was more panfitak'
than
.porn and meat ; sr, they would soon.
the Fight sysiss. A'sk ' uma part he mom
Shok
hay is 004 Pox** liffol7