410 AN AGRICULTURAL PARTY 



IT IS IMPRACTICABLE. 



This is a bold assertion, but it has yet to be proved correct, 

 and there are so many who believe it to be practicable that it 

 will be put to the test. Even if the Central Chamber of Agri- 

 culture finds itself unable to carry the matter further, there are 

 societies and individuals who will take up the gauntlet. 



It is said to be impossible : (1) Because no member, or group 

 of members, of Parliament would fairly represent the landlord, 

 the tenant, and the labourer. (2) Because the expense incurred 

 would prove a burden too great for agriculture to bear. (3) 

 Because there is no unanimity between the units of any one of 

 the three classes embraced under the term " Agriculturists." 

 (4) Because the labourers will never vote the same way as their 

 employers. (5) Because party political feelings are too deeply 

 rooted in the minds of agriculturists to allow them to transfer 

 their allegiance to an independent candidate. There are others 

 of less importance, but these will suffice. It will be found on 

 analysis that some of these are mutually destructive of each other. 



No. 1. 



If it is impossible for a member to fairly represent the landlord ,, 

 tenant, and labourer, how is it possible for members to fairly 

 represent not only those three sections, but the hundred -and -one 

 other sections and interests he affects to represent under present 

 conditions ? No one imagines because an individual tries to 

 directly represent that industry which happens to be the prin- 

 cipal one in his division that a perfect method of representation 

 has been found. But (on the theory of the greatest good to the 

 greatest number) it is held that a man who stands for a division 

 where agriculture is paramount, and stands independent of the 

 party whips, would be better able to look after his constituents 

 than the carpet-bagger who certainly represents a division, but, 

 frequently, by no means represents his constituents. We do not 

 hear it said when a man is sent to Westminster to represent the 

 railway interest, the brewing interest, or the N.U.T., that his 

 division is disfranchised as regards every interest except that 

 on which he depends for the funds to pay his election expenses. 

 Nor does that argument hold good here. Any candidate standing 

 in any capacity whatever will have to give expression to his views 

 upon all general questions of the day, and will be subjected to 

 questions from all the societies of faddists, as present-day candi- 

 dates are subject to them. Unless he can pass through this ordeal 

 in a way that satisfies a majority of the voters he will not be 

 returned. 



It may be true to a strictly limited extent that the interests of 

 the three sections of agriculturists are not identical ; thus the 

 landlord wants as much rent as he can get, and the tenant to pay 

 as little as possible ; or the labourer as high a wage as he can obtain 

 and the employer to pay no more than he need. But these are 



