THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



161 



What I especially referred to, in my remarks ou that subject, 

 was the iasuing of that circular at the ins^tance of Mr. Jonas 

 Webb, for his own satisfactiou, and that of the other mem- 

 bers of hia Company, with whom, as a club, we have of course 

 nothing to do, wherein it was stated that in case uo answer was 

 received by a certain day that was named, it would be taken 

 for granted that the persons addressed agreed with the com- 

 mittee, lu reference to that mitter, I observed that when a 

 pnnted or lithographed paper was received by a member of 

 Parliament, it was as a matter of course shyed into the waste- 

 paper-basket. As an illustration of this, I may remark that 

 on my recently asking Lord March what he thought of the 

 circular in question, he replied that he had not read it, adding 

 that he siw some paper with "Suiithfield Club" upon it, but 

 did not open it. Any printed or lithographed paper is, I con- 

 tend, almost sure to find its way into that sort of" refuge for 

 thedestitute" — the waste-paper-basket. As regards the insinua- 

 tion which Mr. Sidney says I made against the members of 

 the Agricultural Hall Company, what I said was in effect that 

 whatever might be the object of Mr. Jonas Webb, Mr. 

 Clayden, and others, in getting up the company, it appeared 

 that many of them had not taken shares, and that they must 

 therefore be looking to the public to take some ; and that the 

 public did not care a penny-piece about the Smithtield Club, 

 and would look to something else besides the exhibitions of the 

 Club to afford them an adequate return for their outlay. 

 7 added that I thought the best course the Agricultural 

 Hall Company could take was to erect their building, and 

 thai if after it was erected tlie Club considered it a good 

 place for their meetings, it could not be supposed that tliey 

 would not be held there. The insinuation wliicli I made 

 was simply that the public st large would look to some- 

 thing else besides the Smithfield Club Show to yield a 

 return for the investment of their money. Now, with re- 

 gard to the amendment which I have brought forward, I 

 assure you that I have no other object in proposing it 

 than that of benefiting the Club. I may be told that if 

 some persons have not taken a sufficient interest in the 

 proceedings of the Club to be maile aware of all that has 

 occurred in reference to this matter, that is their own 

 fault (Hear, hear). I admit that; but at the same time 

 I must remark, that public men have so much to occupy 

 their time and attention, that it is very natural that they 

 should avoid attending meetings as far as possible; and 

 perhaps this is the reason why so many influential per- 

 soni have known so little about the recent preceedings of 

 the Smithfield Club. Till I saw the thing in print, I my- 

 self was not at all aware that there was a project for a 

 twenty-one years' lease ; and I now declare that 1 have not 

 met with one individual — I may have been unfortunate in 

 this respect — who, whatever may be his opinion with re- 

 gard to the removal of the show, has not been against 

 binding the Club for so long a period as twenty-one 

 years (Hear, hear). I have the greatest respect for my 

 friend Mr. Webb, with whom I have had the pleasure of 

 acting not only in this Club, but also iii the Royal Agri- 

 cultural Society, for many years ; and, whatever others may 

 have^imagined, I, at all events, do not believe that that gen- 

 tleman has intended in this case to promote his benefit 

 individually (cbeeis). But, nevertheless, I must be excused 

 for saying that I can feel very little respect for a com- 

 pany with limited liability, particularly when I find that 

 so few of the shares have been taken up (Hear, hear). 

 My friend Mr. Garrett told me the other day that he had 

 not taken a single share, and Professor Simonds has told 

 us in effect that it is doubtful whether he will lake one. 

 Who, then, are the Agricultural Hall Company? Every- 

 one knows very well that in the case of a limited lia- 

 bility, whatever may be the extent of a man's property, 

 he cannot be held liable beyond the amount of his shares. 

 AVhen we are acting for a large club — a club consisting of 

 three hundred and sixty members — we ought to be very 

 careful what course we pursue, especially as there are a 

 great many members whose engagements make it impossible 

 for them to attend. I contend that the proper time for 

 decidmg this important question is the Christmas Meet- 

 ing, when there is sure to be a large attendance of members. 

 Mr. Sidney has stated that a great many persons are pre- 

 vented from being present to-day by Mr. Sanday's sale. I 

 myself know that a great many members of Parliament 

 are kept away by parliamentary duties ; and I say that such 



facts constitute a strong ground for postponement. A great 

 deal has been said with regard to my motives in taking 

 the course that I have done. I shall treat everything of 

 that kind with the contempt it deserves. I know very 

 well what I am doing, and by what motives I am actuated. 

 People may say what they plcuse. I declare that my sole 

 object throughout has been to benefit the Club (Hear, hear). 

 1 have been assured that if this project is carried out as it 

 stands — of course if any moditicalions should be made ia 

 December it will be oi)eu to everjono to form his own 

 opuiion with regaid to them, and to act as he may deem 

 best — it has been stated to me, and I myself say 

 advisedly, that if this project is carried out in its pre- 

 sent shape, several <if the most influential members of 

 the Club \\ill withdraw their iiiunes. I believe that 

 in adopting the proposition of Mr. Sidney you will be taking 

 a course which is not likely to turn out to have been for the 

 benefit of the Club. Let me remind you, with regard to the 

 divisions which have taken place ou the question up to the 

 present time, that only a very small number of members have 

 been present. I have counted the number present this after- 

 noon, and so far as I can make out there are only 45 members 

 in the room (A voice : " 60 "). I have counted 45 or 46 

 (Another voice : " There are upwards of 60 "). Well, you 

 shall have the benefit of the doubt. I will suppose that there 

 are 60 members present out of a total of 360. The present 

 meeting is certainly a much larger meeting than the previous 

 ones. The largest number of members that have attended 

 previously was 24. There were on that occasion 8 votes for 

 the amendment which I proposed, and 16 against it. When 

 we met at Hachett'a Hotel, a month ago, the members that 

 votedwere6on one side.and 9 on the other; and even supposing 

 that there are 60 out of 350 present this afternoon, I think we 

 shall not be doing right if we do not afford the absent members 

 another opportunity of expressing their opinion on the question 

 before the meeting ( Hear, hear). I was told the other day, 

 that if there were any further postponement, the whole thing 

 woidd fall to the ground. I don't know what the promoters 

 can be looking to. Do they really mean to say, those who are 

 taking shares in this Company, with the hope of getting 10 per 

 cent , that they expect the Show of the Smithfield Club to 

 yield that return? ("No.") Is there something behind? 

 Is there to be an independent exhibition of implements at 

 some other period of the year, perhaps when the Royal Ag- 

 ricultural Society is holding its exhibition (Hear, hear) ? All 

 these things want looking into, and render it desirable that a 

 larger number of members should have an opportunity of ex- 

 pressing their opinion. In the pamphlet put forth by Mr. 

 Gibbs something is said about the value of the agreement at 

 law or iu equity. It there appears that in answer to a question 

 which I put to the solicitor of the society, Mr. Dorman, that 

 gentleman said, that the parties signing the proposed agree- 

 ment on behalf of the Club would incur no responsibility; 

 that the agreement, so fat as its binding the club was con- 

 cerned, would not be worth the paper it was written upon. 



Mr. Dorman : I wrote a letter to Mr. Gibbs to say that 

 that did not correctly express what I meant ; I meant legally, 

 "as far as legally binding the members of the club." 



Sir J. Shelley : I should like to know the meaning of the 

 words " as far as legally binding the members of the club." 

 Would it bind the members of the club at all ? 



Mr. Dorman : Sir John Shelley kncws that the agreement 

 was drawn in that way on account of the difficulty of getting 

 members to sign it on behalf of the Club. It was believed 

 that if parties were asked to render themselves personally 

 responsible, as was the case with regard to the agreement 

 with Mr. Boulnois, the project could, in fact, never be carried 

 out. That matter was well considered by the promoters of 

 the Company, and they were perfectly willing to rest upon a 

 simple resolution of the Club not entailing any personal re- 

 sponsibility. The agreement simply expresses the terms of 

 the arrangement, and though it is binding, the Club would, in 

 fact, only be bound in honour. The Smithfield Club not 

 being a chartered body, and not being registered under any 

 Act of Parliament, it is impossible to frame any agreement 

 which would be legally binding on the Club, unless it was 

 signed by every one of the members. 



Sir JoHx Shelley : Without being a lawyer, I venture to 

 say, in answer to that statement, that there can be no such 

 thing as an agreement that is binding oa one side and not on 



