March 11899 , נ.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
404
}farm attir JMtr.
BY A LAND AGENT.
[SPECIALLY CONTRIBUTED.]
The weather continues to be dry and cold though a change to rain or snow is foretold, and may probably be upon us ere these lines appear in print. The land is turning up splendidly under the plough and a more favourable season for spring corn cultivation could not be wished for. The frosty nights and mornings having a mellowing effect, and putting it in a good condition for sowing. We seem to be experiencing all our winter at the end of the time usually allotted to this season, but this has become rather the rule, for our English winters lately have generally begun some time after Christmas. The price of hay has not been affected in the West of England by the visit of frosts and colder atmospheric conditions. I had occasion to dispose of a small rick the other day, and the figure was anything but remunerative, actually less than the amount paid for cutting, making and ricking! This cannot be called a profitable industry. Mangels are proving useful on account of the scarcity of other ׳roots, and their value as a food is known to all flock-masters, though it is rather early for them at present, and they are a more proofy feed a little later on. Where they are allowed to be sold off the land about 12s6 .׳d. per ton is their market value with us now.
The farmers of Somersetshire and their friends have recently been making a stir because it has come to their knowledge that the inmates of the County Asylum are fed on margarine in lieu of the genuine product of the gentle cow. It has been stated that about £800 per annum is saved by this economy, and if this is the case the farmers say that all this has׳ been lost to them, and consequently are down on the committee of management ; whilst the outcry is great at palming off the stuff on the simple inmates. Margarine may be very nice and wholesome (I have not seen it manufactured yet, or, perhaps, would not be quite so ready to assiuime such a statement), and economy in management may be a great point, but it seem® only right that a large public institution should set a good example by patronising local industries, and helping the struggling agriculturist to find a market for his produce.
And speaking of butter and butter substitutes reminds me of a case which came to my notice recently. Talking to a butcher one day, a gentleman asked him how on earth he got rid of all the loose mutton fat 1	“ Oh, I’ve no diffi-
culty whatever about that,” he said, “Mr. So-and-so, the grocer, takes it all.” “And what does he do with it?” “Why, mixes it up with his׳ butter and sells it to you at Is. 3d. per pound.” That’s an actual occurrence, and not a yarn. And the enquirer after knowledge, on reaching his home, experimented with a quarter of a pound of Mr. So-and-so’s “ finest fresh,” and, sure enough, after melting and allowing to settle again, he could easily distinguish a fair proportion of foreign fat in the “finest fresh.” Little practices such as these, it is presumed, the new Sale of Food and Drugs Bill is intended to keep under, if not eradicate.
At the Thames Police Court, last week, Jules Bayard, of 95, Grundy-street, Poplar, was summoned by Mr. J. Bullock, inspector under the Sale of Foods! and Drugs Act for the Poplar Board of Works, for selling butter adulterated with 88 per cent, of foreign matter. The inspector went into defendant’s ®hop and asked for half-a-pound of Is. butter. Bayard served him, and on having the sample analysed it was found to be adulterated to the extent of 88 per cent. The defendant was fined £10 and 12si 6d. costs, or a month. In future, perhaps, Mr. Bayard will keep a special sample behind the counter for inspectors’ use, and ihe may wish that the provisions of the Act as to “ clearly marking each package” should extend to the vigilant inspector!
The Board of Agriculture leaflets on the “swallow,” and the “spatted fly-catcher” are to hand, and contain much interesting information to those who are lovers of bird life, and also good illustrations of each species. In the notes on׳ the swallow it is stated, that tihe continued decrease in the number of these birds and of their fellows, the martins, is a serious loss to agriculture. The reasons given for this decrease are the slaughter of the birds in the south of Europe, both for food and for the purposes of fashion, and the great increase of the house sparrow, which drives away the swallows from their nesting places, and prevents them from freely breeding. The places where swallows have been accustomed to build are all occupied by sparrows, whose pugnacity and overbearing spirit will •not allow any other birds to come near them.
The swallow and the martin live solely upon 1 insects, and they are of more benefit as insect
to his brothers and sisters of the county when he says that the “majority of parents there regard children only as commercial speculations to be turned into wage-earning machines.” Hence, he says, their opposition to all legislative interference. This is a grave indictment.
Who ■shall say that there is nothing m a name? I note that at Stratford two or three days ago an old lady was summoned as the owner of premises unfit for human habitation. The “ premises ” in question, it was stated, consisted of a small brick building—originally a summer-house—of one room in a dirty and dilapidated condition. This eligible country seat was called “The Hut.” The Bench told its chatelaine that she would have to clear out of it.
I think that probably that versatile and well known author, Mr. Benjamin Trovato, is responsible for the anecdote about the late Lord Herschell’s having on one •occasion made up with half-a-crown the fee necessary to ensure the defence of a “ docker.” But it is indubitably true that counsel is bound by etiquette not to accept a less fee than the customary “ £1 3s. 6d.” There is a story to the effect that a junior was once summoned to answer to his Bar Mess for the heinous offence of taking 19s. only from a prisoner. He was told that this was most “ unprofessional,” and requested to explain, if he could. “Well,” he said, “it was just like this. I took every farthing the poor devil had in the world. I hope you don’t consider that ‘ unprofessional.’ ”
STYLO.
In |3 atiiatmnt.
THE ADULTERATION OF FARM PRODUCE.
In the House of Commons on Monday,
Mr. Long moved the second reading of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill. He said the measure was based upon the report of the committee who enquired into the subject in 1896. That enquiry showed that an improved system of administering the existing law was desirable, amendment of the law not being so necessary. Having assured the House that the demand for this legislation had not come principally from the agricultural community, he stated that the wish of the Government was to strengthen the law. It was proposed that samples should be taken of certain imported dairy products at the port of entry for the purpose of detecting adulteration. With regard to home products, the Agricultural Department asked for power to stimulate local authorities to carry out the existing law. Where local authorities remained supine the Department ought to be able to act independently, the chief object to• be aimed at being the uniform administration of the law throughout the country. The Bill contained provisions for the purpose of preventing the sale of margarine as butter; but it was not intended to interfere with the production and sale of that important article of food. The suggestion that the colouring of margarine should be prohibited could not be entertained. The clauses of the Bill having reference to the general law affecting food and drugs were based on the recommendations of the committee, and embodied the most valuable of their proposals.
Mr. Lough, disliking the Bill because he regarded it as a protective measure introduced in the interests of the agricultural community, moved that it be read a second time that clay six months.
Sir C. Cameron endorsed the view that the measure would restrict the supply of certain useful foods.
Sir M. Stewart approved the Bill generally, but regretted •that under it harder measure would be meted out to the home manufacturer and producer than to the foreigner.
Mr. Strachev commented on the fact that the measure contained no definite provisions dealing with the practice of colouring certain foods.
Mr. Heywood Johnstone thanked the Govern ment for introducing the Bill, in which there were several most salutary clauses.
Sir W. Foster thought :this legislation rather disappointing, because its promoters had passed over some very important recommendations• of the Select Committee. He advocated the constitution of a Court of Reference charged with the duty of fixing the standards to which different foods ought to conform.
Mr. Llewellyn maintained that when butter was coloured artificially or when it contained preservatives the circumstance ought to he disclosed to the purchaser.
Mr. Kilbride supported the Bill in the interests of fair trade as against fraudulent trade.
After Mr. Lowles and Mr. Philipps had made some observations, the debate stood adjourned.
The debate was resumed on Thursday, when Mr. T. W. Russell claimed that the general sense of the House was in favour of the Bill.
After a long discussion, •the second reading ■ was carried by 218 to 18.
latest contempt of Court case, that olf “ Greenwood v. Clough and others.” The motion• to commit Mr. D. G. Macrae, the editor of the “ Financial Times,” aroused a good deal of interest in City circles. It ended, as such applications connnonly do, in no order being made, except that Mr. Macrae should pay the costs, indirectly a substantial mulct, inasmuch as two Q.C.’s and two juniors had been briefed. Without saying a word on the merits or questioning for a moment the propriety of Mr. Justice Kekewich’s decision, 1 cannot help thinking that the case is a further illustration, if one were needed, of the expediency as far as newspapers are concerned of a reform in the law as to oontempt of Court as well as in that as to libel. It was not denied that Mr. Macrae had apologised, and made all the reparation possible, and the learned Judge himself said that “ motions of this .land ” •ought to be discouraged, and that he recognised, “as every man interested in honest commerce would recognise, the importance of papers criticising in vigorous language the scandals which were the disgrace of the present century.” But still the order to pay costs was made on the ground that the matter complained of might interfere with the course of justice, which, after all, is a question of speculation and surmise. After a period of comparative immunity there appears to be a certain recrudescence of the contempt of Court complaint in the big building in the Strand, which renders “ Greenwood v. Clough ” all the more worthy of attention.
The case of “ The Attorney-General v. Reis,” which was decided in the Queen’s Bench Division on Monday, was one of a good deal of interest and importance to stockbrokers, auctioneers, solicitors, and all others whose business compels them to• use many stamps. The •dispute was a curious one. The substance of the allegations on the part of the Clown was that stamps had been removed from some contracts and. placed upon others by Reis, who was an “ outside ” broker. The defence was that nothing of the kind had •happened, and that no stamp had been effectively used twice, though it had sometimes chanced that stamps had been improperly placed upon documents which were never issued, and those stamps had been removed and placed upon other documents. No stamp had ever in any improper sense been twice used. This defence seems reasonable, for why should stamps be wasted? One knows, for instance, that they are often cut off envelopes and placed on other envelopes. However, as there were no less than 67 counts in the information filed against Reis, it would have been hard luck if the Crown had not succeeded on some of them, and ultimately Reis’s counsel, Mr. Carson, Q.C., said that as the first 46 counts, which he regarded as more serious than the others, inasmuch as they imputed fraud, were not insisted upon by Sir Richard Webster, he had advised hie client to submit to judgment upon the last 21 counts, which were for penalties for uttering documents without having proper stamps affixed. Mr. Justice Grantham thought the defendant was wise in accepting the advice which had been given him, and there was judgment for the Crown for £420 penalties upon the last 21 counts, with costs. The amount will be a little bit off Reis’s profits for the year.
Great and manifold are the scandals with which our French neighbours have been occupied since, that unblessed word “ Panama ’׳ raised storms in their excitable bosoms. Many people, I take it, imagine that Do Lesseps’ scheme died years ago in the odour of jobbery. But the whirligig of time brings round his revenges, and at this time it is stated that just on half of the cutting of the Isthmus has been accomplished. So much having been done, the probability is that the work will be carried through, whether it costs 20, 30 or 40 millions —sums which have been variously suggested, and the greatest of which is small compared with the magnitude of the benefits which should ultimately accrue from this stupendous enterprise. If through Panama canalisation De Lesseps gains posthumous honour, most men of right feeling and right judgment will rejoice. History will undoubtedly record that in the latter half of the 19th century one man at any rate deserved well of his country. The amount of gratitude which Ferdinand de Lesseps received from those he had benefited is well known, but his name will live as long as that of the nation to which he belonged.
In view of the proposals now being made to raise the working age of children from 11 to 12, such a book as “ The Effects of the Factory System,” by Mr. Allen Clarke, deserves careful reading. I cannot help thinking that the author somewhat overstates his case—a fault to which philanthropists and reformers always have been, always are, and probably always will be liable. But, generally speaking, his points are substantial and forcibly put. Many instances are given of the effects of the factory system in the textile trades of Lancashire upon women, especially as regards the morality of those of 14 or 15 and thereabouts. Though a Lancashire man himself, Mr. Clarke uses very plain language
agings anîr Düings.
The “starting price” bookmakers of London have apparently resolved on! war to the knife with the County Council re their by-law of last year, which provides that “ no person shall frequent and use any street or other public place, on behalf either of himself or of any other person, for the purpose of bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, •or agreeing to bet or wager with any person, or paying, or receiving, or settling bets.” The betting gentlemen—there was one lady amongst them—at their last meeting at the Cock and Lion—a sign indicative of boldness and even of ferocity—declared that they would, if necessary, go to the House 0!f Lords on the question of the validity of the by-law, and it was stated that they had abundant funds in hand for the purpose. At the Wigmore-street gathering, one bookmaker asserted that he had recently won a bet from a member of the County Council, and he is believed to have contributed the amount of it to the fund, which, on dit, was further enriched by the victory of a horse called County Council in a race last week, •though I presume that the story of a certain amount of the money of the “ bookies’ ” league having been invested on that animal “ for luck ” is a malicious canard. I do not suppose that the league would ever back horses itself. It probably knows better. On the contrary, it is only fair to say that at the Cock and Lion gathering it was resolved that any funds which should remain after the payment of legal •ex-penses •should •be given to charities.
Speaking seriously on a subject of no mean importance, I think that the majority of Londoners “who know” would be inclined to say that the chief desire of •the bookmaker is—so far from creating an obstruction or other nuisance—to keep out of the way of the public in general and .the police in particular, to carry on his׳ business as quietly and unostentatiously as possible. It is not •his fault, he would say, but his misfortune that be is not allowed to use an office or to occupy any other place “within the meaning of the Act.” I have over and over again said that the question of street nuisances was a serious one, and I believe that the Estates Gazette and the “ Standard ” were the first two papers to call attention to its importance to householders and other citizens. But I should be pretty confident of the result if !a general vote could be .taken as to׳ who was the greatest nuisance to our thoroughfares■— the bawling costermonger, the screaming newspaper imp, the whistling urchin with his hoop or peg top, or the betting man. The latter, in truth, is no .nuisance at all to those who calmly and sensibly ignore the fact of his existence, •which he never obtrudes on anybody. If you say that betting is wrong and immoral, then you are travelling out of the record. If it is wrong and immoral, ■why not make it a criminal offence !jure and simple.
A correspondent, who, judging ‘from his name —McGinty—I presume to be of Hibernian extraction, writes an indignant letter requesting me to give the name of the Irish M.P. who, i stated last week, considers that a measure to make the lending of money to gentlemen in want of it compulsory would be more satisfactory than the proposed new legislation as to usurers. I am very sorry that journalistic etiquette forbids me to comply with this request. My word, which is as good as my bond, must be accepted for the veracity of what appears over the signature of “Stylo.” By-the-bye, in connection with the measure introduced by Lord James, it seems to me that the expediency of establishing State banks or loan offices is a question not undeserving of attention. Take the case—unfortunately no uncommon one—of a man who has failed in business and requires £20 or £30, say, to take a small shop and ■start again. It is no good his applying to a usurer, for the interest on the loan— -if he got it—would assuredly crush him. But if he could offer anything in the nature oi reasonable security and give satisfactory references as to character and business capacity, why should he not be able to obtain from a State bank an advance at a .moderate rate of interest—Lord James’s 10 per cent., for instance 1 The idea is not a new, •one, but the present seems a favourable time for a more thorough examination of it than has as yet been attempted. I have no •head for details, but speaking generally, it certainly seems to me that establishments of the kind, helping the small business man in towns and the labourer in agricultural districts, would save more than half the extortions of private Shylocks of unlimited lie-ability, and a large amount of the unfortunately too often futile charity of the benevolent.
If it were not for newspaper proprietors and company promoters, how would that sometimes necessary evil, the respectable solicitor, and his appendant or appurtenant barrister, live nowadays? The question has been asked before, but it occurs to me now in connection with the