Hope, an ex-president of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, as one of the deputation to the Duke of Richmond this spring, stated that in his opinion not one-fiftieth part of England was farmed as it might or should be. Others have expressed similar opinions. The committee of the House of Lords came to the conclusion that only one-fifth part was profitably farmed. But whether it is one-fifth or one-fiftieth, there is something radically wrong in the system under which agriculture is unduly depressed. I can only come to the conclusion that agriculture will not prosper while there is practically no security for capital-and, I will add, no security of tenure and no freedom of cultivation. I came into the fee simple of an unencumbered landed estate, a property supposed to be, as far as its buildings were concerned, in unexceptionably good order. I have spent considerably more than a quarter of a million of money on that estate in permanent improvements, and I must admit that, looking at that expenditure simply in the light of an investment, it has not been remunerative. I think I may, therefore, conclude that the majority of landowners in England, whose income is simply derived from the soil, cannot afford the luxury of making those improvements that are necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. The tenant must advance the capital; and I have a firm conviction that in this country, where there is so much capital seeking employment, and so many men anxious to find an active occupation in their native land, that though fortunes are not to be made by farming, a fair interest on the money invested may be obtained, considering the pleasant country life, the freedom from great anxieties, and the possibility of enjoying field sports (without any serious loss) two or three days in a week during the season; I think I may say, if there was aniple security for capital, that in the words of Mr. Howard, it would be forth coming to an extent but little anticipated. Where there is capital there is generally education, refinement, and a taste for the luxuries of life. Are the homes of the farmers of England, as at present constituted, adapted to such wants ? Are the fields laid out so that skill and energy can be successfully employed? No. Capital will not be attracted to the soil under existing circumstances. Capital will not be attracted to the soil where there is no security but the word ef man. Neither in my opinion will capital be attracted without security of tenure and freedom of cultivation. I believe that security of tenure, with liberal conditions, to be the simplest mode of giving security for capital. Where the tenant finds the capital for permanent improvements, that capital must be amply secured either by lease or agreement. I know that many owners of land object strongly to granting leases. Mr. Pusey, one of the most able and enlightened landlords of his day, stated that if he granted a lease for twenty years he would no longer have any interest in his property. Many landlords hold this feeling, but it is a feeling I cannot understand. [A VOICE: "I should think_not."] Other landlords object to giving leases, because in so doing a good understanding is not so likely to exist between them and their tenants as when the land is let from year to year. In my opinion a good understanding is more likely to exist when the tenant is not entirely dependent upon the will of the landlord. My tenants generally hold under lease, and I can only say that, during the thirty years I have been in possession, I have ever received the greatest kindness and courtesy from them all, and I am certain that if I live thirty years more I shall never regret having given freedom of cultivation, and removing those clauses from my lease which it were an insult to the intellect of my tenants to retain. I have been told that I have given power which may be abused; and. I have also been told that what is comparatively safe for me would be extremely dangerous for other landlords to attempt. To the first I would answer that if confidence were misplaced in one or two it would be most impolitic on my part, and most injurious to my tenants, to put fetters apon all. To the second I would say, that if faith and confidence exist between me and my tenants it is not the work of many generations-it is the work of one man, and that man was my father. I have done nothing but carry out the principles he established, adopting those amendments that were necessary to meet the requirements of the times. Feudal times have passed away, and it is folly to grasp at the shadow when the substance has departed. I know that on many estates at the present time leases are not desirable, and I know that on many estates tenants object to take leases; while I will strongly urge that, where practicable, security of tenure and freedom of cultivation are most desirable; but security for capital is an absolute necessity. And how is this to be obtained? It is the wish of many, who are as competent as I am to form an opinion on the subject, that the Legislature should interfere. I am opposed to all, or to nearly all, interference on the part of the Legislature. Any act of Parliament must be of a permissive character, unless it utterly ignores the veto of the owner of the soil. This, I consider, would be an unjust interference with the due rights of property, and, moreover, a probable source of enmity between landlord and tenant. The Government have brought in a permissive bill. The Duke of Richmond, in a most able speech in introducing that bill, admitted the difficulties with which agriculture has to contend, and suggested a remedy. We are indebted to her Majesty's Government for the principles contained in the bill, and I trust the majority of landlords will adopt those principles; but, if they are wise, as soon as the bill is passed they will contract themselves out of it, selecting those clauses and making those arrangements that are best adapted to meet the wants of their respective estates. I do not believe in a compulsory legislation. The remedy lies in voluntary action on the part of the landlords, and, if I may use the term, compulsory action on the part of the tenants. Now one word on the unexhausted capital that supposed to remain in the soil during the last two years of the tenancy. I believe that if an Act of Parliament was passed drawing a hard and fast line through the length and breadth of the land, defining the amount to be paid to the outgoing tenant, it would be a source of continual litigation and strife, and cause a serious injustice and an injury to the incoming tenant. I have not a word to say against the Lincolnshire custom, nor against any private arrangement that may exist between landlord and tenant; but considering the difference in climate, in soil, in various systems of farming, and the different times of entry into the farm, I believe it to be utterly impossible to legislate on this subject with any degree of fairness either between the incoming or outgoing tenant. It has been alleged that the public will suffer by the land getting out of condition. But what is for the interest of the tenant is for the interest of the publib, and I believe it is for the interest of neither that the incoming tenant should be heavily taxed at the time he can the least afford it. As an incoming tenant, I should say, "Give me a clean farm, and let me have my money in my pocket." I have stated that I am opposed to all, or nearly all, compulsory legislation; but I would give this security to an outgoing tenant, I would adopt the original views of the Prime Minister by extending the notice of termination of annual tenancies from six to eighteen months and make that compulsory. I believe that would be of more value to agriculture than all the clauses in the bill put together. I would draw your attention, before I sit down, to the views of one who is far more competent than I am to give an opinion on this subject. I allude to Mr. Lawes, and I recommend you to read an article in the last number of the Royal Agricultural Journal on "Unexhausted Improvements." Mr. Lawes concludes with these words: "The main conclusions arrived at may be summerised as follows: 1. In the existing state of our knowledge, no simple rules, applicable to various soils and subsoils, climates, seasons, crops, and manures can be laid down for the valuation of the unexhausted residue of previously applied manures which have already yielded a crop. 2. Under such circumstances, valuation upon such a basis would very frequently result in injustice to the one party or the other, and would probably lead to much litigation. 3. If a system of compensation, based upon the valuation of the unexhausted residue from parchased foods or manures were adopted, power should be given to the landlord, or to the incoming tenant, to take samples for analysis of any foods or manures, for the use of which any claim is to be made. 4. In consideration of the difficulties attending other methods of valuation, it is very desirable to consider whether compensation for unexhausted condition of land might not be advantageously based upon the amount of certain products of the farm, the quantity and money-value of which can be easily ascertained." Just so: Payment for results; the system adopted in Norfolk by covenants. Now, gentlemen, I have to thank you for the attention you have paid me. I believe my views are not in accordance with the majority of those I am addressing, but holding them I was bound in all honesty to express them. Although I have stated that I have no faith in legislative interference, I have faith in that interest which is the greatest of all interests-the interest of self. I have faith that the landlords will see how greatly it is to their advantage to give security of capital, and, where practicable, security of tenure and freedom of cultivation. I have faith that tenants who are worthy of the name will no longer continue to farm under the servile conditions that at present exist. And then, and not till then, will the science of agriculture be worthy of this great and wealthy nation. The CHAIRMAN said that though there was a very good show of implements, there were no improvements worth mentioning. But all had seen the fine collection of stock. The Norfolk polls were an improving class of cattle. It was a matter of regret that the Shorthorns were so poorly represented. There were some fine Shorthorns exhibited, but out of the lot shown only nineteen belonged to Norfolk. Many people said that this was not not a county for horses, but he was of a contrary opinion, for in the winter they had plenty of straw for the young ones instead of turning them out to get an odd bit of grass. Any young farmer who wonld ride and make a good horse would have a good sale for him. As to the landlord and tenant question, he lived in a part of West Norfork where things went on very comfortably. His father left him a legaey in a class of tenants who were not to be beaten. When through illness or death a farm had to be given up, the first question asked was, "Has he a son ?" or "Has he a brother ?" and "Where is the money gone ?" It was always the son or brother who had the first chance. Sir W. BAGGE, M.P., said the landlords of England could not do better than accept the Holkam lease, promulgated three or four years ago. That lease also contained everything that the tenant could desire. He would never vote for a bill in the House of Commons which would do away with the freedom of contract, for such a bill would not benefit the farmers. He differed from Mr. Gurdon's speeches, delivered in the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland, they would be found detrimental to the good feeling which existed between landlord and tenant, and would ultimately lead to the letting the farms by auction, the landlord treating the letting as a mere commercial transaction, and never looking at the land again until the lease had expired. That sort of feeling was to be deprecated. He was for keeping up a good feeling between landlord and tenant; and this he thought might be obtained by the present bill, brought in by her Majesty's Government. He was not, however, wedded to that particular measure, which was, as it were, a tacit acknowledgement that something was due to the tenants of England. If they could only get what Lord Leicester had suggested the farmers would receive all they expected. Sir R. J. BUXTON, M.P., said that an allusion had been made to this county being one of the greatest barley-growing counties in the country, and it might therefore be thought wrong that he should be absent from the House of Commons when a question was being discussed that most intimately concerned barley-growers; but, having listened to the able speech of the Lord Lieutenant, and the remarks which had fallen from Sir William Bagge, he felt that not only as a representative of agriculture, but as a member of the Legislature, he was more in his place at a meeting of this kind listening to their expositions on matters which nearly affected them all, in view of the legislation which must shortly take place, than in listening to the absurd and wild schemes of Sour-faced Puritars in the House of Commons, to deprive their fellow-countrymen of the rational enjoyment of the creatures of this life. No one was more fitted, from his position, his family history, and the interest he took in agriculture, to deliver an authoritative opinion on these subjects than Lord Leicester. In saying this he did not wish it to be understood that he followed the noble lord in all his remarks. The next few months might mark a great era of change in the agricultural history of England. Last year they passed through one great phase, happily with less disturbance than might have been anticipated-the increase of wages. This difference of wages had very much influenced the whole course of farming in the Eastern Counties, nd a question of the greatest consequence now was the elation between landlord and tenant. The bill dealing with that question, which had left the House of Lords from a landlord's point of view, was, he considered, susceptible of improvement from the tenant's point of view in the House of Commons. He believed he was expressing the feeling of his brother landlords when he said that while naturally desirous of retaining the privileges which had been handed down to them from their forofathers, they wished to protect the capital of their tenants and benefit by their skill without putting one farthing of their capital into their pockets. Anything they spent in accordance with their agreement should be returned in the fullest possible way. Mr. E. BECK (the agent of the Prince of Wales) said that during the last six or seven years His Royal Highness had taken the greatest possible interest in all that concerned the county of Norfolk, and the instructions which he had received from his Royal master were that he wished to go into all those things which could be recommended as calculated to benefit the agriculture of the county in which he lived. Mr. KEARY said that although he had travelled 600 miles to be present at that show, he had been well repaid by what he had seen. He officiated as a judge at the Norfolk show when it was last held at Fakenham, some eight or nine years ago, and he must say that he saw a very marked improvement in the exhibition which he had seen that day, certainly with regard to the animals which he had more particularly judged -the polled cattle. He could look back for more than thirty years, and when he remembered the long-legged narrowbacked animals which were then called the Norfolk polled cattle, he saw a most wonderful change in them. When he first came into the county some red animals with horns were then the prevalent breed in Norfolk. He expressed regret that he had not seen any of those animals exhibited on that occasion, but it appeared that the agriculturists had taken the wise and the most profitable course in endeavouring to improve and develop that breed which is no doubt more adapted to the soil and climate of this country than those exotic animals which were formerly cultivated. There could be no question but that in counties where they saw a marked breed of animals there were good reasons why that breed should be cultivated, and he thought the red polled cattle of Norfolk were such a marked class as would prove the truth of what he said. He could not sit down without alluding to the able speech of the noble lord. With a great part of that speech he cordially agreed, and though he found no fault with his lordship for throwing to the winds all sorts of restrictions which existed in his leases, he nevertheless felt convinced that the majority of West Norfolk farmers would still adhere to the four-course system. It might be that he was prejudiced in favour of that system, having practiced it for more than 36 years, but he had yet to learn what improvement could be made upon it on the light barley growing soils of West Suffolk. A forcible illustration of the value of this four-course system was to be found in the record of the awards of prizes made by the Royal Agricultural Society. The prizes offered by the High Sheriff of Oxfordshire for the best cultivated farms in the district visited by the Royal Show a few years ago, were awarded-and he was one of the judges-after a visit to more than 25 farms in four or five counties, the first to a farm cultivated on the four-course system, and the second to one farm on the six-course shift. Five years afterwards similar prizes were offered for farms in a district extending from Yorkshire to Wales, and again they were awarded to farms cultivated on the four-course shift. Moreover, if the records were searched, it would be found that this system invariably succeeded in winning the prizes. It was a system which originated in Norfolk under the auspices of the father of the noble lord who had addressed the meeting, and it was one of the wisest and best systems of agriculture ever introduced. Though they might remove the restrictions on farming-which he was no advocate for-he was convinced that few farmers would depart from the old system, which would put more money into their pockets than any of the new and exhaustive processes. THE MECKLENBURG AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. -At the meeting at Malchin, Lord Walsingham's Southdowns were awarded the first prize, as the best of all the English breeds of sheep in the show. SALE OF MR. BLENKIRON'S YEARLINGS.-At Middle Park, the average was close upon 230 guineas. for 50 lots. The highest price was 1,500 gs. for a filly, a halfsister to Hermit by Vespasian; but high prices did not rule, and the sale was regarded as an indifferent one, especially when put in comparison with the Cobham Company's average. Hope, an ex-president of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, as one of the deputation to the Duke of Richmond this spring, stated that in his opinion not one-fiftieth part of England was farmed as it might or should be. Others have expressed similar opinions. The committee of the House of Lords came to the conclusion that only one-fifth part was profitably farmed. But whether it is one-fifth or one-fiftieth, there is something radically wrong in the system under which agriculture is unduly depressed. I can only come to the conclusion that agriculture will not prosper while there is practically no security for capital-and, I will add, no security of tenure and no freedom of cultivation. I came into the fee simple of an unencumbered landed estate, a property supposed to be, as far as its buildings were concerned, in unexceptionably good order. I have spent considerably more than a quarter of a million of money on that estate in permanent improvements, and I must admit that, looking at that expenditure simply in the light of an investment, it has not been remunerative. I think I may, therefore, conclude that the majority of landowners in England, whose income is simply derived from the soil, cannot afford the luxury of making those improvements that are necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. The tenant must advance the capital; and I have a firm conviction that in this country, where there is so much capital seeking employment, and so many men anxious to find an active occupation in their native land, that though fortunes are not to be made by farming, a fair interest on the money invested may be obtained, considering the pleasant country life, the freedom from great anxieties, and the possibility of enjoying field sports (without any serious loss) two or three days in a week during the season; I think I may say, if there was ample security for capital, that in the words of Mr. Howard, it would be forthcoming to an extent but little anticipated. Where there is capital there is generally education, refinement, and a taste for the luxuries of life. Are the homes of the farmers of England, as at present constituted, adapted to such wants? Are the fields laid out so that skill and energy can be successfully employed? No. Capital will not be attracted to the soil under existing circumstances. Capital will not be attracted to the soil where there is no security but the word of man. Neither in my opinion will capital be attracted without security of tenure and freedom of cultivation. I believe that security of tenure, with liberal conditions, to be the simplest mode of giving security for capital. Where the tenant finds the capital for permanent improvements, that capital must be amply secured either by lease or agreement. I know that many owners of land object strongly to granting leases. Mr. Pusey, one of the most able and enlightened landlords of his day, stated that if he granted a lease for twenty years he would no longer have any interest in his property. Many landlords hold this feeling, but it is a feeling I cannot understand. [A VOICE: "I should think not."] Other landlords object to giving leases, because in so doing a good understanding is not so likely to exist between them and their tenants as when the land is let from year to year. In my opinion a good understanding is more likely to exist when the tenant is not entirely dependent upon the will of the landlord. My tenants generally hold under lease, and I can only say that, during the thirty years I have been in possession, I have ever received the greatest kindness and courtesy from them all, and I am certain that if I live thirty years more I shall never regret having given freedom of cultivation, and removing those clauses from my lease which it were an insult to the intellect of my tenants to retain. I have been told that I have given power which may be abused; and I have also been told that what is comparatively safe for me would be extremely dangerous for other landlords to at tempt. To the first I would answer that if confidence were misplaced in one or two it would be most impolitic on my part, and most injurious to my tenants, to put fetters upon all. To the second I would say, that if faith and confidence exist between me and my tenants it is not the work of many generations-it is the work of one man, and that man was my father. I have done nothing but carry out the principles he established, adopting those amendments that were necessary to meet the requirements of the times. Feudal times have passed away, and it is folly to grasp at the shadow when the substance has departed. I know that on many estates at the present time leases are not desirable, and I know that on many estates tenants object to take leases; while I will strongly urge that, where practicable, security of tenure and freedom of cultivation are most desirable; but security for capital is an absolute necessity. And how is this to be obtained? It is the wish of many, who are as competent as I am to form an opinion on the subject, that the Legislature should interfere. I am opposed to all, or to nearly all, interference on the part of the Legislature. Any act of Parliament must be of a permissive character, unless it utterly ignores the veto of the owner of the soil. This, I consider, would be an unjust interference with the due rights of property, and, moreover, a probable source of enmity between landlord and tenant. The Government have brought in a permissive bill. The Duke of Richmond, in a most able speech in introducing that bill, admitted the difficulties with which agriculture has to contend, and suggested a remedy. We are indebted to her Majesty's Government for the principles contained in the bill, and I trust the majority of landlords will adopt those principles; but, if they are wise, as soon as the bill is passed they will contract themselves out of it, selecting those clauses and making those arrangements that are best adapted to meet the wants of their respective estates. I do not believe in a compulsory legislation. The remedy lies in voluntary action on the part of the landlords, and, if I may use the term, compulsory action on the part of the tenants. Now one word on the unexhausted capital that is supposed to remain in the soil during the last two years of the tenancy. I believe that if an Act of Parliament was passed drawing a hard and fast line through the length and breadth of the land, defining the amount to be paid to the outgoing tenant, it would be a source of continual litigation and strife, and cause a serious injustice and an injury to the incoming tenant. I have not a word to say against the Lincolnshire custom, nor against any private arrangement that may exist between landlord and tenant; but considering the difference in climate, in soil, in various systems of farming, and the different times of entry into the farm, I believe it to be utterly impossible to legislate on this subject with any degree of fairness either between the incoming or outgoing tenant. It has been alleged that the public will suffer by the land getting out of condition. But what is for the interest of the tenant is for the interest of the publib, and I believe it is for the interest of neither that the incoming tenant should be heavily taxed at the time he can the least afford it. As an incoming tenant, I should say, "Give me a clean farm, and let me have my money in my pocket." I have stated that I am opposed to all, or nearly all, compulsory legislation; but I would give this security to an outgoing tenant, I would adopt the original views of the Prime Minister by extending the notice of termination of annual tenancies from six to eighteen months and make that compulsory. I believe that would be of more value to agriculture than all the clauses in the bill put together. I would draw your attention, before I sit down, to the views of one who is far more compe tent than I am to give an opinion on this subject. I allude to Mr. Lawes, and I recommend you to read an article in the last number of the Royal Agricultural Journal on "Unexhausted Improvements." Mr. Lawes concludes with these words: "The main conclusions arrived at may be summerised as follows: 1. In the existing state of our knowledge, no simple rules, applicable to various soils and subsoils, climates, seasons, crops, and manures can be laid down for the valuation of the unexhausted residue of previously applied manures which have already yielded a crop. 2. Under such circumstances, valuation upon such a basis would very frequently result in injustice to the one party or the other, and would probably lead to much litigation. 3. If a system of compensation, based upon the valuation of the unexhausted residue from parchased foods or manures were adopted, power should be given to the landlord, or to the incoming tenant, to take samples for analysis of any foods or manures, for the use of which any claim is to be made. 4. In consideration of the difficulties attending other methods of valuation, it is very desirable to consider whether compensation for unexhausted condition of laud might not be advantageously based upon the amount of certain products of the farm, the quantity and money-value of which can be easily ascertained." Just so: Payment for results; the system adopted in Norfolk by covenants. Now, gentlemen, I have to thank you for the attention you have paid me. I believe my views are not in accordance with the majority of those I am addressing, but holding them I was bound in all honesty to express them. Although I have stated that I have no faith in legislative interference, I have faith Strensham, Tewkesbury; second, B. St. John Ackers, Painswick, Stroud; third, W. Nicholson, Basing Park, Alton. Shorthorn cow in calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months next preceding the 15th of June, 1875.First prize, R. Blythe, Woolhampton (Paris); second, J. Stratton (Mabel); third, Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Consort's Shaw Farm, Windsor (Coldcream the 4th). Shorthorn heifer, in milk or in calf, under three years old on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, Rev. R. B. Kennard, Marnhull, Blandford (Queen Mary); second, Lady Pigot (Rose of Lincoln); third, W. Nicholson (Necessity 4th). Shorthorn heifer, above one year and not exceeding two years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, Rev. R. B. Kennard (Olga); second, Lady Pigot (Zoezda); third, O. Viveash.-[Zoesda is the heifer then unnamed which beat Olga at Croydon.] Shorthorn cow-calf, above six months, and not exceeding twelve months of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, W. Nicholson (Laura 6th); second, R. Stratton (Queen Bess); third, Her Majesty the Queen (Windsor Hart). Devon bull, of any age.-Prize, Captain Taylor, Glynleigh, Eastbourne. Devon bull, above one year and not exceeding three years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, Captain Taylor. Devon cow in calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months next preceding the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, Captain Taylor. Devon heifer, under three years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, J. Turvill, Hartley Park Farm, Alton. Devon heifer, above one year and not exceeding two years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, Captain Taylor. Sussex bull, of any age.-Prize, W. M. Stanford, Horsham. Commended: J. Turvill; E. and A. Stanford, Eatons, Steyning; and G. Smith, Paddockhurst, Crawley, Sussex. Sussex bull, above one year and not exceeding three years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, J. E. and A. Heasman, Angmering, Arundel. Highly commended: H. H. Hammond, Horsell Woking Station. Commended: G.Smith. Sussex bull, not exceeding twelve months old on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, G. Smith. Highly commended: J. E. and A. Heasman. Sussex cow in-calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months of the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, J. E. and A. Heasman. Sussex heifer, above two and not exceeding three years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, J. E. and A. Heasman. Sussex heifer, above one year and not exceeding two years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, J. E. and A. Heasman. Sussex heifer-calf, not exceeding twelve months of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-Prize, B. Duke, Lyminster, Arundel, Sussex. Jersey or Alderney bull of any age.-First prize, G. A Fuller, The Rookery, Dorking, Surrey; second and third, J. Bonham-Carter, Adhurst St. Mary, Petersfield. Guernsey bull of any age.-Prize, J. Le Patourel, Ramee, St. Peter's Port, Guernsey. Jersey or Alderney bull under two years of age on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, C. B. Dixon, Shirley Warren, Southampton; second, H. Drewitt, Millville, Titchfield, Hants; third, G. Simpson, Wray Park, Reigate. Guernsey bull, under two years of age on the 15th June, 1875.-Prize, T. Harvey, Broadlands, Newport, Isle of Wight. Jersey or Alderney cow in calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months of the 15th June, 1875.-First prize, G. Simpson, Wray Park, Reigate; second, ditto, ditto; third, W. Selby, Isle of Wight. Guernsey cow in calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months of the 15th June, 1875.-First prize, G. Collins, Southwick, Fareham, Hants; second, £2, ditto, ditto. Jersey or Alderney heifer, not exceeding 2 years old on the 15th June, 1875.-First prize, Miss Lyon, The Oaks, Emsworth; second, R. Shackleford Cross, Petersfield; third, G. A. Fuller, Dorking. Guernsey heifer not exceeding two and a-half years old on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, W. E. Fitt, Kerrfield House, Winchester. Jersey or Alderney heifer, not exceeding 18 months old on the 15th of June, 1875.-First prize, G. Simpson, Wray Park, Reigate; second, H. Drewitt, Millville, Titchfield. Ayrshire bull exceeding 12 months of age.-Prize, A. J. Scott, Rotherfield Park, Alton. Ayrshire bull above one and not exceeding two years of age on the 15th June, 1875.-Second prize, A. J. Scott. Ayrshire cow in calf, or if in milk, having had a calf within six months of the 15th June, 1875.-Prize, A. J. Scott. Ayrshire heifer above one year and not exceeding two years of age on the 15th June, 1875.-Prize, A. J. Scott. PIGS. Berkshire boar over twelve months of age on the 15th June, 1875.-First prize, H. Humfrey, Kingston Farm, Shrivenham, Berks; second, J. Dove, Hambrook, Bristol; third, H. Humfrey. Berkshire boar under twelve months of age on 15th June, 1875.-First prize, H. Humfrey; second, R. Swanwick, Cirencester; third, J. P. King, North Stoke, Wallingford. Berkshire breeding sow of any age.-First prize, R. E. Duckering and Sons, Northorpe, Kirton Lindsay; second, J. Dove; third, H. Humfrey. Pair of Berkshire sows under nine months old on the 15th June, 1875.-First prize, R. Swanwick; second, executors o the late J. Wheeler and Sons, Long Compton, Shipston-onStour; third, B. St. John Ackers, Prinknash Park, Painswick. Large breed, not being Berkshire, for the best breeding sow of any age.-Prize, J. Dove. Boar over twelve months of age on the 15th June, 1875.First and champion prize, J. Dove; second, executors of the late. J. Wheeler and Sons; third, the Earl of Portsmouth, Wembworthy, N. Devon. Highly commended: R. E. Duckering and Sons. Boar under twelve months of age on the 15th June, 1875. -First prize, the Earl of Portsmouth; second, J. Dove; third, R. E. Duckering and Sons. Highly commended: J. Kent, Whyke, Chichester. Breeding sows of any age.-First prize, executors of the late John Wheeler and Sons; second, the Earl of Portsmouth; third, J. Dove. Pair of sows under nine months old on the 15th June, 1875. -First and second prizes, the Earl of Portsmouth; third, executors of the late John Wheeler and Sons. Sussex boar of any age.-Prize, E. and A. Stanford, Eaton, Steyning, Sussex. Sussex sow of any age.-Prize, J. Kent. First prize, Samuelson and Co., Banbury; second, W. A. Wood, Worship-street, London. Commended: Picksley and Sims, Leigh, Manchester. The following were amongst the other exhibitors of agricultural machinery: Tasker, of Andover; Baker, Newbury; Cannings, Horndean; the Reading Iron Works Company; Perman and Cook, Southsea; Apsted, Guildford; Smith, Basingstoke; Stacey and Lace, Newbury; Sutton, Shirley, Southampton; Wallis and Steevens, Basingstoke; Hetherington and Parker, Alton; Groom, Portsmouth; Peacock and Buchan, Southampton; Coleman, Southsea; Hart, Southampton; Osborne, Liverpool; Bradford and Co., Manchester; Hathaway, Chippenham; Goss, West Plymouth; Duffield, Regent's Park; Hilton, Altrincham, Cheshire; Day and Sons, Crewe; W. A. Hope; while Suttons, of Reading, and Carters, of Holborn, had their well-known seed and root stands. At the dinner, which was very poorly attended, not more than 50 or 60 persons being present, Mr. J. Bonham-Carter, the late Member for Winchester, and President of the Society, in the chair, urged the importance of every owner of land understanding his relation to those who cultivated the land for him, whether as tenants or labourers; and it would be far better for the country if a greater number of those who had the good fortune to own land would open their eyes to this. The closer the relations between these three the better it would be for all of them. He believed there was some limit as to what constituted a farmer; and there were some 3,000 farmers in Hampshire. He wished they had all been present. He was one of the 3,000; and if he had learned anything of farming, he had seen the importance o more intellect, more education, more science being brought into the profession, for a profession farming was becoming. More capital, too, was required, as well as more brains. Farms were decreasing in number because they were increasing in size. They must, therefore, get more highly educated men A to farm them; but they would not do that unless the farmer was able to get from his profession sufficient to keep his wife, and family, and himself. He saw, too, there were now more bailiffs. That seemed as if gentlemen were looking more to their farms. And he did not know why they should not. gentleman was the man who could afford to make mistakes, A man who had a wife and family dependent on him must be cautious. He would not step out of the road to make an experiment. It did not, however, matter to the wealthy owner of property whether he had much profit one year or another; but if he could make experiments, it was of great importance to the farmers, who were the manufacturers of food. For there had never been any hesitation with regard to the imparting of information by farmers. Their chances of making experiments were rare, and they were always willing to show what they had done, in order that their neighbours might learn of them. It was not a question of "I have a patent, or some mystery." That was the reason why there was more fellowship among farmers than among manufacturers. That was the reason why the farmers' dinner was regarded as a family party, as theirs was that day. SALE OF SHORTHORNS, THE PROPERTY OF MR. JOSEPH PULLEY, OF LOWER The Eaton herd was founded from the stock of the Reception. Mr. J. Briscoe, 24 gs. Miss Oxford 2nd.-Mr. G. Ashby Ashby, 26 gs. Mars.-Mr. Briggs, 28 gs. gs. Prince Charlie.-Mr. Hutchinson, 26 gs. FROM MR. EDMUND LYTHALL, RADFORD HALL. Chorister.-Mr. Tregaskis, 30 gs. FROM MR. T. PEARMAN, Nobility. Mr. Holder, 29 gs. FROM MAJOR WEBB. Sentinel.-Mr. T. Mason, 18 gs. FROM MR. WILKES, BUSHBURY. William Gladstone.-Mr. Harper, 23 gs. Red Prince.-Mr. Owen Bennion, 5 gs. FROM MR. W. BRADBURN, WEDNESFIELD. Little Grig.-Mr. J. Bickford, 30 gs. Prince Butterfly.-Mr. J. Briscoe, 15 gs. Millbank.-Mr. Lunn, 13 gs. FROM EARL BEAUCHAMP. Honeydew.-Mr. Ballinger, 34 gs. COWS. Priestess. Mr. G. Ashby Ashby, 40 gs. Rosebud.-T. E. Walker, 44 gs. BULL. Priam.-Mr. Cattell, 32 gs. THE MILWARD MONDAY AT TATTERSALL'S. Mr. Milward brought up a very moderate lot, and had a bad sale; Mr. Hornsby's hackneys making, very deservedly, a far higher average. MR. JAMES HORNSBY'S HACKS: MR. MILWARD'S PONIES. Lord Dundreary.-Col. C. White, 100 gs. SALE OF SHORTHORNS AND HEREFORDS IN AUSTRALIA. BRED AT COLAC BY MESSRS. ROBERTSON BROTHERS, AND SOLD BY GIBSON AND CO., ON MARCH 19, 1875. SHORTHORN BULLS. 2nd Duke of Rockingham.-Messrs. W. Gibson and Sons, Tasmania, 510 gs. 3rd Duke of Rockingham.-Mr. W. Murray, Brie Brie, Glen Thompson, 250 gs. Marlborough.-Mr. G. Kirk, Queensland, 220 gs. Lord of the Isles.-Mr. J Clarke, Melbourne, 100 gs. Cardinal.-Mr. D. Mitchell, Yarra Flats, 110 gs. Orient.-Mr. J. Clarke, Melbourne, 90 gs. Viscount.-Hon. R. Simson, Trawalla, 170 gs. Lord Ripon. Mr. G. Mylne, Clarence River, N. S. W., 100 gs. Comet. Mr. A. Riley, Hamilton, 110 gs. Cherry. Mr. J. Clarke, Melbourne, 100 gs. Lady Brunswick.-Mr. W. M'Lean, Campbellfield, 330 gs. |