AN AGRICULTURAL PARTY 413 



between the different classes far more pronounced than (with 

 one exception) in any other part of England. Mr. Haggard 

 makes the mistake of arguing from the particular to the general. 

 This is not fair to the labourers. Their interest in the welfare of 

 agriculture is just as great to them as to the farmer or land- 

 owner ; it is only a question of degree. They are not the ignorant 

 louts that comic and some other papers pretend to think them, 

 and if treated reasonably will act as reasonably as other people. 

 I admit that this is the most difficult point to argue upon in the 

 whole of this question ; no less difficult for our opponents than 

 for us, because their main contention is based on wrong con- 

 clusions, or, at best, on a bald assertion ; so for the present this 

 point must lie in the lap of the gods. What we have to do is to 

 discuss all these matters with the labourers ; reason them out 

 calmly and dispassionately, not with any idea of ** cajoling " 

 them into believeing this or that, but accepting the fact that if 

 met properly they are as clear-headed as other folk. But this 

 must be done now, not during the heat and viciousness engendered 

 by elections. It must be, of course, a part of the policy of those 

 who are proposing the formation of an Agricultural Party to 

 advocate measures which will benefit the labourers directly, as 

 well as those which will only indirectly touch them. No question 

 will be more popular than Mr. Jesse Ceilings' Land Purchase 

 Bill, and this must be one of the main planks of our programme. 



NO. 5. PARTY FEELING TOO DEEPLY ROOTED. 



In the last section the expression was used : " Since the 

 majority of farmers and landowners have been on the Unionist 

 side." I use the words " have been " advisedly, for there are very 

 many men who all their lives have staunchly supported the Con- 

 servative Party in the blind belief that they were really the 

 farmers' party, but who had their faith so rudely shaken by the 

 late Government that their allegiance is no longer certain. Some 

 of these might under present conditions vote for a Liberal 

 candidate, many would not vote at all, but practically every 

 one of them, as well as those who have never been tied to either 

 party, will give their support to agricultural candidates. More- 

 over, there will be many opportunities for agricultural votes to 

 be given to candidates who, though standing as agricultural 

 candidates, and free of the Party Whips on agricultural questions, 

 will show a decided bias to either the Liberal or the Unionist 

 side. One proposal is that agriculturists should select their own 

 candidates, but that in a division where the preponderating 

 vote is Liberal a candidate acceptable to the Liberals should be 

 chosen, and conversely in the case of a Conservative constituency. 



This is another point upon which it is useless for us or our 

 opponents to dogmatise. It remains to be proved, and until it 

 is proved that we are wrong it is unreasonable to say that it is 

 impossible. 



