The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1863-02-03 00:00:00

Tea MALT TAY.

DORCHESTER FARMERS CLUB.

The usual monthly meeting of the Dorchester
Farmers' Club was held on Saturday last, when
several new members were pro
the President, G. J. Wood Eaq.. rid the subject
for discussion that evening was "The breaking up of
old pasture, and the best mode of future cultivation
thereof;" but before they proceeded upon that part
of the business he desired to bring before the con-
sideration of the meeting • subject in reference to
UM petition to the House of Commons for the Malt
Tait repeal. This petition bad now been for the
lest fortnight open for signature, and there were no
lees than 149 names attached to it. He would beg
to observe that no one bad been asked th sign it
who was not, either directly or indirectly, connected:
with the land, and be bad no hesitation in oaring
that this most important document—s document
which ought to carry with it great weight in the
House of Commons--it represented not less than
50,000 acres of land. According to instructions
received at their last meeting their Sertetary had
applied to Mr. Seymer, the senior member for the
county, to ascertain if be were willing to
present this petition, and also support its prayer
In the House of Commons, and Mr. Seymer had
replied to the secretary to the effect that he was
willing to present the petition, but declined to
promise to support the prayer thereof. As this
letter was addressed to the Secretary of the
Dorchester Farmers' Club, it was of course the
property of tho club, and every member had a right
to see it. He would therefore read it.

" Hanford, Blandford, January 18, 1863.

"Dear Sir,— I shall have much plenum in present.
jig the petition against the Malt Tar. My opinions on
that tax are well known ; •1 the same time, in the
present state of the public expenditure, and with en
income tax of Pd. in the E. I will by no miens pledge
myself to vote for the repeal of the Malt Tax. I Mated
publicly in the Honse of Commons on the Paper-duty
debate, that though I had on former cecarionsenpported
lath the repeal of the Paper-duty and alao that of the
Malt Tax, I was not ire-pared to rep. at those nous in
the present state of the finances: at the mine time, I
think the farnier, are quite right to keep the question
alive. Very truly yours,— H. K. SEYMEIL '
Now it was for them to &insider whether they would
entrust the petition to toy member who wu not pre.
pere4 to support its prayer. (NO, no.) Then snob
being the use, the nut idea that rua.,,,omsted itself was,
that if the petition wits to be presented at the meeting
of Parlistnent,therc would be very little time for corres•
pondenoe on thmt point. Ile would therefore ink
whether it was important that the petition should be
press nted immediately on the opening of parliament, or
whether it would nit be as well that it should be pm-
nested within the firet week or ten day. sabuquently.
It was neceioary that the document should he before
the House very early in the session, but it did not seem
to him to be absolutely necessary that it efiould be pre-
sented on the very test day of Parliament. Perhaps as
so many petitions were preeented on the lint day of the
meeting of Parlinmant,•single one would carry with it
more weight than when there were fewer petitioni to
occupy the attention of the house. If they agreed with him
on that point, per bap. these was still plenty of time to
secure the opinions of the other county Inarobers before
they went Lathier to seek some othn r ineinber of the
House of Commons to undertake the task. He thought
that perhaps it would he well th•t both their other
county moodier, should be written to to ascertain if
either was in a position, to cordially support its
prayer, should the petition be entrusted to them. But
if neither of their members felt that they could do this,
there were plenty of other county members in the Houle
of Commons, whose names they knew, who were cor.
dially with them upon this question. Now, if they
agreed with what lie hod advaoced, they would ask
their secretary to ascertain the opinion. of Mr. Sturt
and the lion. Mr Portman if they, or either of them,
were prepared to go with the petitioner, upon the Malt
Tan question. But if neither of them would not,vras the
meeting that night prepared to state into whose hands
they would conimit the document? He took it to be
the opinion of the club that their other two coonty
members .hould be first of all applied to in the name
manner they had applied to their senior member, and
that failing their concurrence in the views of that club
on the Malt Tax repeal, they should entrust it to
another county member fur pretentation to the House
of Commons. Hr thought he should scarcely do justice
to the subject without making one more observation,
which woe, that Le believial that all who had signed
that petition were very earnest, aod fully agreed in
what they had done ; and he would further say
that he was quite satisfied, Dint in the origina-
tion and ftlitherance of that petition, not a
single member of that club had been in the leant in-
duenced lie oartv politics. Party politics had been
entirely left out of the question by them—their only
anxiety had been the promotion of, sod which they
firmly believed in their hearts to be, a good measure.
Mr. H•IIDISU. the •ice-chainnan, asked if they
were to consider that Mr. Siemer had pootively re-
fund to support the p f their petition? After
bevies heard that gentleman on SO many occasions say
that they were right in carrying on their petition for
the repeal of the Malt Tax, he took it for granted that
be was heart and soul with the great body of urinal-
turista. He was only sorry that Mr. Seymer had not
spokes out • little more plainly—that he had not
spoken out like a min and said, " Yes, gentlemem,
am with you in referetice to the subject of your latition,
and I'll support it." Did the chairman think that Mr.
Seynier meant positively to refuse to upper' the
prayer of their petition in the Howse of Commons !
The CH/ASEAN said they hid asked Mr. Seymer to
support the prayer of their petition on presenting it to
the Hoem, and he interpreted horn letter to mean that
he could not pledge Aimedlf to support it.
Mr. HODGES asked if any other gestleman besides
Mr. Seyour hod been applied to in referee°e to the
presentation of the petition?
The CIi•IRMSE said they instructed their Secretary
to write to Mr. Seyiocr in the first instance, and as that
gentleman's answer was not favourable, be apprehended
the other membere would now he written to, and if
either of them would support the prayer of the
petition the document would be entrusted to his
charge for presentation.
Mr. HODGES looked upon Mr. Seynier's answer to he
that el a man of 'insincere. He would vote upon this
or any other tax that was brought before the House
according to the beet of his judgment, bathe would not
pledge himself bi fore-hind to support a measure,
whether it would be wise to do so or not. Therm were
a great many tiring, to consider—one of which was the
finances of the country. Perhaps they would not
admit of it. There were, no doubt, many gentlemen in
the House who would vete for the repeal of the Malt
Tan, even were it ruinous to the country that the repeal
should take place at the present time. Now he took it
that Mr. Seyiner hooked at this petition in a ministerial
point of view, and he refitted to pledge himself to a
...ore a /deli, were he a mernher of the Government, he
could not ...patron. A man of bemuse. nod integrity amid
not lay himself open to charge. of incormisteney of this
sort, and be thought that their best course would be to
sutrust the petition to Mr. Seymer. whose opioions
were well known on the iubject, and n.jg
their other members to 'upper, it ; hot be
would leave it to their own judgment to do what
they coosidemd best in the matter. No doubt Mr.
Brunner could give a very good maws why he should
not pledge himself to support this or any other par.
fielder monetary measure. Consideration should be
hod to time and the condition of the ocouitry, and be
considered it wan not a good plan to call soon any
member to pledge himself to support positively any
other partisular measure before hand, whether it
should seem to bins politic or not to do so when
the time arrival. Mr. Seymer might may that he
looked upon the Malt Tax as an obnoxious tax, and
that he believed it ought to be repaaled, but that
without knowing precisely the financial condition of
the comntry, he 11113 Wre
A prepared to pl
to what he would do in regard tol. himself es
e tax this
or the following mission. No doubt he was willing
to present at and do all that ha eras able to do to get rid
of the impost; and for himtelf he was averse to pledging
their members further than that. He did not think
Mr. Beyemee reply was a positive Maul to support
the prayer of the petition, provided that the stole
of the ismotry were favourable for it. Bat as he bid
before remarked —.O many things had to be considered
and &WON' the met, how was the law moult raised
from this source to be mule up—that he throned it
weld be better to leave the matter to the discretion