AGRICULTURAL JOTTINGS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11181, 1 February 1897, Page 2

AGRICULTURAL JOTTINGS.

r Canterbury Times.”]An intention is being manifested by some of the Australian Governments to make the inspection of live stock and stock products something more than a matter of form. Queensland has instituted a system of inspection of meat . by. qualified veterinary surgeons, and Victoria is about to appoint a:staff of veterinary surgeons to inspect the ■whole of the dairy herds of that colony. In both cases the object in view is to satisfy the consumers, foreign or colonial, that the cattle and their products, used for food, are free from any disease which might render them unfit for human consumption.. We trust it will not be long before a similar supervision will be enforced in New Zealand. There is, however, a difficulty in the way at present, namely the scarcity of qualified men/ who have the necessary experience of the diseases of colonial-stock, to act as inspectors. The ’ fiusiraUan Tam d«d, Some, a journal Which has' consistently ad vocated a thorough system of inspection, deprecates the importation - df veterinary surgeons from the Old Country, a 3 has been suggested,on the ground been assiduously promulgated by-the Victorian Stock Department as well —that • English-trained veterinarians have no-acquaintance with the diseases of Australian stock; as well as on the further ground that the. salary offered would tempt only the “ culls of the profession” from any country—not that it is implied that colonial veterinary surgeons would accept such 'remuneration. - It is rather implied that veterinarians of colonial experience,!! not of colonial education, should by preference receive such appointments. They would bring to their duties a familiarity with local conditions, which could not fall to stand them in good stead, and there- is much in this contention. Veterinary instruction of a very high standard is now available in Melbourne, as it is, iii Christchurch, affording young men the opportunity of qualifying for just such positions as these inspectorships. In Victoria and Queensland, and also in New Zealand'there are at the head of the Government Veterinary Departments highly qualified and experienced veterinarians under whose direction and supervision the work of inspection would be carried out efficiently, and in such a manner as to gain the confidence of stock owners as well as local and British consumers. For foreign consumers it is necessary that the inspection shall be by a veterinarian holding a recognised qualification; bnt we may hope that , the day is not far distant when a colonial qualification will be considered sufficient in any part of the world. Lord. Carrington, in whom, as a former Australian Governor, interest is still taken in these colonies, and who is known as one of the most liberal and advanced of English landlords, lately gave an address upon agricultural affairs which has attracted much notice. He recognised the depression in agriculture as a most grave matter for both landlords and tenants, and after referring to. the slight measure of relief given to the latter by the - legislation of last session, he expressed his own opinion that the tenants are entitled to look to the landlords for the substantial part of the relief which they expect. He declared openly that the situation should be saved not for. the landlords, but by the landlords themselves. His lordship declared that the low prices and foreign competition were not the great causes of agricultural depression, although he was willing to acknowledge them as serious drawbacks. Inhis opinion,landlords and tenants could live comfortably if it were not for the enormous charges on most estates, which are, in consequence, eaten up in the payment of interest, and thoroughly impoverished with the huge cost of keeping up country houses, until the two together rendered the landlord unable to do justice to the holdings of his tenant. To give some idea of what a country house cost to keep, without undue extravagance, he had been informed by the owner that th e annual expenditure on a country house in the Eastern counties for gardens, shooting, carpenters' shop, sawmills, subscriptions, agency, rates and taxes, repairs, &c., came to .£IO,OOO, which sum did not include any edit of living or of the horses kept all the year round in the stables. Many landlords who own these large country palaces would have to confess that they had to practice

the strictest economy in order to keep up the most expensive habits. His lordship's opinion was based on his own experience, as one whose whole income was dependent on land. About twenty-eight years ago, ho said, he inherited a landed estate with two large country houses, one, fortunately, being only on lease, with charges and obligations on the property to the extent of nearly .£400,000. Since that time, though the rents had gone down about 30 per cent, he had repaired all the farmhouses and buildings, and had only lost, except in cases of death, twenty of the large tenants, and had put on the land several thousand small holders. He had bought and paid for .£30,000 worth of property in Bucks and his mother’s old family place in Wales, and had never, with the exception of one strong clay farm for a short time, had a single acre of land unlet, and ho had cleared off over .£350,000 of mortgages, encumbrances and obligations by selling outlying portions of his property —a Welsh estate, and ono of the large country houses—the income of which was a great drain on the income of the estate. This is held to show that if landlords will keep within their means, they ought to be able to clear their estates from encumbrances, to live themselves in a satisfactory manner, and yet be able to let their farms at such a rate that it will pay a tenant to farm them; and, further, to themselves effect improvements which, in the long run, are hound to prove to the benefit of both owner and occupier. The Palmerston (South) cattle case dies very.hard. The local paper states that the owner of the cattle applied to the Government for the payment of the sum of £75 for loss sustained by him in consequence of the action of the officers of the Stock Department. The reply of Mr Ritchie is also published, stating that the matter has been before the Cabinet and it has been 1 decided that the claim cannot be recognised, bnt that, on the other hand, the claimant had rendered himself liable to a penalty for disposing of the cattle without the consent of the Stock Department. Mr Ritchie also mentions that the expenses of the enquiry into the conduct of the officers of ' the Department—which completely exonerated them from the charges made against them—amounted to over .£l4O. The Palmerston Times states that Mi - Johnston explains that it was agreed to examine the cattle on July 1, with the intention of releasing them, that two neighbours examined them on July 2, and that he did not dispose 5f them until the latter end of August, at which time there was not the slightest trace of any pox, and that, in fact, the cattle were free from it at the time of the visit of the neighbours. Mr Johnston also states that he was unaware at the time he sold the cattle that it was necessary to notify the department of his intention. This is simply drawing a herring across the trail. The facts are that the cattle were not isolated on account of cow-pox, bnt because they were suspected of being tuberculous. The delay in their being examined was at the desire of the owner, who represented that he was preparing a petition to Parliament on the subject of his supposed grievances; and that the owner knew well that the cattle were prohibited from being removed is proved by two of his neighbours having entered into a bond for their production: when called upon. Par from Mr Johnston having suffered any hardship he appears to have set the authorities at defiance from first to last, and it is to he hoped that no such leniency will be shown in future as that which has been taken advantage of by the offender in the Palmerston case. Mr E. T. Hooley, of bicycle and hovril fame, differs from most wealthy financiers in his estimation of land as an investment. While wealth and energy generally have steadily been turning from real or rural property towards the more speculative and fluctuating commercial enterprises of towns and gold-producing countries, Mr Hooley has boldly breasted the strongly-flowing tide, and during the last fifteen years has sunk the tidy sum of £500,000 in the Requisition of English estates. The Estates Gazette has been interviewing Mr Hooley on his landed investments, and, judging by the information he generously provided, this shrewd man of finance will, contrary to common belief, be substantially enriched by his courageous purchases. Careful to select land of a workable character, and situated -within reasonable distance of a market, Mr Hooley finds

that few better investments, and none safer, than real estates are open to the man with money unoccupied. At the terms upon which land, as a rule, can bo purchased at the present time, he regards it—and surely he is in a position to speak with authority —as an infinitely safer market for capital than many of the trade companies promoted for the development of the doubtful resources of colonial and foreign countries. The Field welcomes this candid expression of opinion from a shrewd financier, and entirely concurs in his sanguine belief that capital judiciously invested in land at current prices will, in the course of time, yield a munificent return.