At a very full meeting, held on Wednesday, July 9. Mr. GEORGE COLLETT read the following paper: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,-Allow me to remind you that the subject to which I have engaged to draw your attention is essentially an agricultural one, and that the repeal of the malt-tax would, in all probability, confer on agriculture a greater benefit than any other enactment the Legislature could make; and this being the case, I trust it will be a sufficient apology for my introducing this question to the notice of the Club. As my object on the present occasion is to elicit discussion, with the view of measures being set on foot to procure the repeal of the malt-tax, I will endeavour in a few words to draw your attention to-First, the amount of the malt-tax, and the effect it has on private brewing. The malt duty, as you are all probably aware, amounts to 21s. 8d. and a fraction per quarter. To show the effect it has on private brewing, it is necessary to take the average price of barley and add the expense of making it into malt. Putting the average price of the past season at 36s. per qr. (which I think is a fair one as regards the purchaser, and add 4s, per qr. for making, your quarter of malt will cost 40s., or 5s. per bushel, and by 48. per qr. for making you will understand that to be the ordinary price charged by the maltster when the farmer sends his own barley to be made into malt. The general retail price of malt at present is, I believe, from 8s. 6d. to 9s. per bushel, or from 68. to 728, per qr., about double the price of prime barley, and from 10s, to 14s. per qr. more than the price of the barley and the duty, which, of course, constitutes the maltster's profits, less the expenses of making, &c.; so that you will perceive that if the brewer made his own malt, under the present system, he would gain by it about 8s. per qr., and you will probably say, why not avail himself of the saving? The reason is very plain; the ordinary wetting in a single-handed malt-house is from 10 to 12 qrs.; some few old ones wet not more than 7 or 7 qrs. You are aware, I dare say, that you cannot send to the malt-house, as you can to the mill, a sack or two at a time, but you must send a full wetting, or it would not pay the maltster. Now, I need not point out to you that there are very few farmers who require the smallest quantity, viz., 7 or 7 qrs. of malt at one time, especially as the habit of paying in money, where beer used to be given, is becoming general, in harvest-time as well as others (and who can doubt the cause of this change?) driving the men into temptation and the neglect of their work, by having to go to the beershop for their ten-penny ale; better than which, if not saddled with the duty, they could brew at home at 3d. per gallon. As stated by Mr. Edward Cayley in one of his admirable letters on the Malt Tax, which, I confess, rather staggered me on first reading, the poor man could brew as good beer at home for 6d. per gallon, if the duty were repealed, as he gets at the public house now for 6d. per quart, which one minute's consideration satisfied me to be a fact: so that the tax, which amounts to something over five millions, costs the consumer directly over fifteen millions; and it is impossible to say what it costs indirectly. Before leaving this part of my subject, I would observe that, in reference to the figures I have used, I intend no reflection on the brewer or maltster. It is the tax and its effects that I have to deal with. We know that the manufacture of every highly-taxed article becomes a monopoly, as a matter of course. 2ndly, That it bears almost exclusively on the agricultural and labouring classes, but more especially the latter, it requires but a very few words to prove. Who are the beer-drinkers? allow me to ask. Everybody can answer: The labouring classes of every description throughout the country; while out of every 6d. they pay for beer 44d. is thrown away, so far as they are concerned. Do you think any of them know the taste of French wine? Everybody, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must answer, No. Mr. Gladstone has certainly to answer for mocking the poor thus: without being even asked for bread he has given them a stone. As regards

the agriculturist, it affects him in various ways; more, without doubt, than can be foreseen. It is generally believed that malt, for feeding purposes, is equal, or superior, to oilcake. That, of itself, would be a most important ground. The greater part of the oilcake consumed in this country is either made abroad or from foreign seed; or, what is worse, from spurious and comparatively worthless ingredients. If the farmer could malt his own barley, use it as a substitute for oilcake, without being dependent on the foreigner and the honesty of the manufacturer and dealer, and necessarily keep his money in his pocket, who can estimate too highly the advantages to be derived from that source alone? 3rdly, That the Malt Tax is demoralizing in its tendencies there cannot be a doubt. If the labourer could procure malt at about half its present price, and brew at home beer for 6d. per gallon better than what at present costs him at the publichouse 6d. per quart, no one has any reason to doubt but he would do so, and thereby avoid to a very great extent the temptations presented to him at the publichouse and the beerhouse. It is, I think, impossible to estimate the proportion of strong beer and liquors consumed unpremeditatively, if one may so express it; but from various causes connected with society, such as the effect of example, excitement produced in different ways, and not unfrequently from the adulteration of the beer. This might be avoided, to a very great extent, by the labouring man being able to drink his favourite beverage-and only luxury as a beverage-pure and unadulterated, by his own fireside, and adding to his enjoyment the pleasure of his wife and family sharing it with him. I have said labouring man, because I intend it to apply to all the operative classes throughout the country; for I have no hesitation in saying that my observations apply stronger to those of the manufacturing and mining than to the agricultural districts, as it is in the former districts the great bulk of the beer is consumed. So that it is a question, that of the repeal of the Malt-tax, that concerns the mechanic, the artisan, and the miner, as well as the agriculturist: they are all beer-drinkers. Englishmen are not naturally dram-drinkers, much less sour-wine drinkers. Genuine strong beer is what they prefer, while the trash that in many instances goes by that name, combined with its high price, drive some, indeed many, to the gin-bottle. But the foreigner is better cared for by our considerate Government. He, forsooth, must not be taxed if he has a fancy for British beer or malt; for I daresay you are all aware that, if beer or malt be exported, a drawback of the duty is allowed. I don't know what you may think of this, gentlemen. I can't help thinking it absolutely preposterous. If it will not be detaining you too long, I will read some short extracts from two of Mr. Cayley's letters before referred to: "I will not (says Mr. Cayley) speak of the hardship of not being able to malt barley for feeding purposes-in itself a great grievance-or of preventing a farmer from malting his own barley for his own labourers. Beer has almost ceased to be the habitual drink of a farmhouse. But it should be fully understood how this tax hits every man, whether his land will grow a malting sample of barley or not. Take off the tax, and you lower the price of all. The lower price will increase consumption and exportation." In a subsequent letter he goes on: "Again, the tax drives the populace to public-houses, where, instead of getting daily a wholesome supply of honest beer, by drugs, company, and excitement, they are tempted to swill themselves into a state of drunkenness drinking in a day what ought to have served them for a month, as well as their wives and families; what the loss to the country is from this source it is almost impossible to estimate, and all this arises because they are not allowed to malt their own barley in their own cottages, for their own drinking. One can put no money value on their loss. How many days' labour lost to the state, and many starving families, and how much poor's rates does this driving of men to the public-house not produce? It is not the quantity of

the beer, but the time and mode in which it is drunk, that is, all at a sitting, when it should have served for a month, that makes drunkards. On an average the labouring classes get far less beer than is for their good, rather than too much. A repeal of the malt-tax would cause a greatly increased consumption of barley for malting. That increased consumption would raise the demand, while it would decrease drunkenness." Now, as all this talk, and all that is to follow, will amount to nothing without something be done, I will read another short extract from a leading article in a recent number of the Mark Lane Express, advising us how to act. "Naturally it will be always very inconvenient to lose any such an amount of revenue as the malt-tax produces, so long as the sufferers will submit to pay it. But the inconvenience must be put the other way. It will be very inconvenient for any Government to continue the malt-tax when a strong and united party in the House insist upon its repeal;" and further on the editor observes, "We must repeat that we still have little faith in meetings and resolutions and deputations, when the farmers are only talking again and again to each other; or in subscriptions or societies, when the first object is not to get hold of the members. What, in a word, is the use of a farmers' friend or a county member, but to exert himself on the part of his constituents for the repeal of the malt tax? In Kent and Sussex, where the M.P.'s do work for the farmers, they have got off the hop duty-very inconvenient no doubt to remit, but still more inconvenient to retain. In Cambridgeshire one hearty yeoman objected to having an exciseman always, hanging about his house, and accordingly instructed his friend in another place' to keep clear of such an officer; and he did so. There," adds the editor, "are recent cases for immediate imitation; and the malt tax will be carried only, as the hop duty and private licence have been, by making use of our representatives in Parliament." I trust, gentlemen, I have now showed sufficient grounds for demanding a total repeal of the malt tax, without reference as to whether the amount of revenue it produces can be spared or not, for certainly such ought not to be a reason for retaining a tax that tends to immorality, is exclusive in its operations, and is levied on one of the principal cereals grown by the class who, of all others in this country, were the only sufferers by the repeal of the corn laws. Besides which, the present Government have virtually dispensed with such a plea, from the fact of their having in the last two years parted with taxes on British and foreign productions to the amount of three millions. Let me urge you, gentlemen, on no account to accept from the present or any future Government anything less than a total repeal of the malt tax. The motives of those gentlemen who propose a reduction of the tax are without doubt good, and I duly appreciate them; but on further consideration I trust they will see that it will not meet our case. The restrictions placed on the malting of barley and the trammels and monopoly of the trade would still remain, accompanied by the machinery for collecting the tax, which would be of more consequence to the farmer and consumer than the whole duty, for you have seen that the tax costs the consumer treble the amount of duty paid to Government. A reduction of half the duty, or 18. 4d. per bushel, would not be worth accepting, for there is no doubt in my mind that the greatest gainer by that would be the common brewer, and next to him the strong beer drinker, who would not benefit to the amount of a halfpenny per quart, while the poor man's facilities for brewing at home would be as far off as ever, and of course the temptation of the beer shop and its evil tendencies would be as strong as ever. Gentlemen, I beg to thank you for your attention, and apologise for having detained you much longer than I contemplated when I commenced writing my paper. You will observe I have said little as to the political character of the tax, but every one knows that ever since free trade has been the order of the day the Malt Tax has been a gross inconsistency, and, as concerns the agricultural and labouring interests, a barefaced injustice and sacrifice of principle.

Mr. WILLIAMs, of Baydon, rose to propose the first resolution. He was much pleased with the excellent paper introduced by Mr. Collett, and fully concurred in all be had stated. That the malt tax was a heavy and unjust tax on the agriculturist, he was quite sure would be admitted by all present; and, as it was part and parcel of the free-trade measure of 1846, it was very unfair that it should remain such a heavy

burden on the land. Mr. Williams proceeded to say that, with the competition the farmers of England had to meet against all the world in the growth of wheat, this grain was seldom grown at a profit; and, if they contemplated extending the growth of barley, the excise restrictions and heavy duty on malt prevented them doing so. The very large consumption of oilcake and the cattle condiments, the produce principally of foreign countries, which are too often adulterated with refuse matters, serving only to flavour inferior food, showed at once the economy of being able to use malt in the same way, even if it should be proved that it would not be a first-rate food used in larger quantities, Mr. Williams concluded by formally moving the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr. ALFRED PIKE, Ramsbury: "That the malttax is a great burden on the agriculturist, both by its amount and the restrictions it places on the free use of one of the most important cereals; that it is contrary to the principles of free trade and the spirit of legislation adopted by this country for the last 15 years." Carried unanimously. Mr. WILKES, of Baydon, moved the second resolution, and commenced by saying that he considered the malt tax exclusive, and for that reason was unjust to the labourers especially; and by the term labourer, he meant not only the agricultural labourer, but all who gained a subsistence by the sweat of his brow-artizans, miners, &c. In a paper read before the Social Science Congress, a short time since, by Mr. Horace Mann, that gentleman stated that the labouring population amounted to four-fifths of the whole community, which, when taken from the returns of the last census, amounting to 30,000,000, would leave the number of labourers at 24,000,000; and, as the duty on malt during the last year was £6,029,376, each labourer, including man, woman, and child, will have paid a tax over 5a. a-head. Mr. Wilkes also laid before the club a copy of the return of the duty on malt during a period of 165 years, showing its increase and decrease, and its effect on the consumption per head of each individual, and how it had decreased from 5 bushels per head, in 1730, to 1 bushels in 1862; and when the duty on beer was repealed in 1829, it gave an impetus to the consumption of malt of 30 per cent. ; whilst, when the 5 per cent. extra duty was added in 1840, it reduced the consumption of malt to the like amount, clearly showing how the heavy duty affects the producer. The motion, seconded by Mr. T. STAGG, Crofton, was: "That in the opinion of this meeting the malt-tax is exclusive, and therefore unjust; inasmuch as it falls almost entirely on the labouring classes, depriving them of what ought to constitute their daily beverage." Carried unanimously.

The following resolutions were also duly moved and carriedBy Mr. T. CHANDLER, Aldbourne, Wilts, seconded by Mr. PLENTY, Newbury: "That the malt-tax is demoralizing in its tendencies, because the labouring-man is prevented by it from brewing his own ale at home; and is thereby thrown open to the temptations presented to him at the beerhouse, whither he is driven to procure this highly-taxed beverage."

By Mr. ALFRED NEATE, Ramsbury, seconded by Mr. WM, ATHERTON, Ramsbury: "That the members of this club and their friends are, and always will be, willing to bear their share of the taxes of the country; but they must protest against class taxation, and they conceive it to be the duty of the legislation to provide that the taxes be levied as equally as practicable on all her Majesty's subjects.”

By Mr. GODWIN STANDON, Hungerford, seconded by Mr. LAVINGTON, Littlecote: "That this Club do procure petitions, to be prepared and presented to Parliament, and request the county members to support the same; and do pledge themselves in pursuance of the foregoing resolutions, to do all in their power to promote the total repeal of the malttax."

By Mr. WOOLRIDGE, Hungerford, seconded by Mr. A. HISSEY, Barrack Farm: "That copies of the resolutions be forwarded to the Members for Berks, Wilts, and North Hants, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Ball; and at the same time this meeting would express its deep regret at none of the said members for the counties and divisions aforesaid having attended the meeting, although it is gratifying to find that all of them save one have acknowledged the unjustifiableness of the malt-tax."

Letters from the county members for Berks, Wilts, and

North Hants were read by the secretary, excepting from Mr. Walter Long and Mr. Bouverie, however, one of whom favoured the club with an anonymous communication -all admitting that the tax, in equity, is unjustifiable.

On replying to the ordinary vote of thanks on those occasions, Mr. COLLETT added that, of the extra five per cent. on exciseable articles, and the 10 per cent. on the assessed taxes imposed in 1840, the whole had been repealed, except the malt tax. He could only account for this injustice by the system adopted by the Government of making those bear the greatest burden who most quietly submitted to it.

A vote of thanks to the Chairman closed the meeting.

The Hungerford Farmers' Club has been discussing the Repeal of the Malt Tax just as it should be considered; and that is as one upon which their representatives must be forced to speak out. These honourable gentlemen are not only pointedly addressed in the resolutions passed on the reading of Mr. Collett's paper, but the members for Berks and Wilts were specially invited to attend the meeting. Unfortunately not one of them could make it convenient to be present, but Mr. Sotheron Escourt "hopes that his constituents will allow him the liberty of giving his vote according to a general consideration of the exigences of the public service"-a highly encouraging prospect for the constituents, whatever it may happen to mean. Then Mr. Walter "fears he must wait till mankind have learned to be more peaceable than they are at present, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to part with so productive a source of revenue." We fear that we can scarcely agree with the honourable gentleman's view of the matter, believing, as we do, that the more "peaceable" the electors of Berkshire continue, the less chance will they have of repealing the malt-tax. Mr. Slater

Booth rather improves upon this, as he "has always been a strong advocate for a reduction, not the repeal, of the malt tax; the former being the practical object to keep in view, the latter impracticable." Mr. Beach, better still," will attend any meeting in the autumn or winter with reference to so important a subject; though, as long as our expenditure is so large, it is hopeless to expect any relief." We gradually reach on to " noblemen," for Lord Henry Thynne "has long advocated a reduction in the malt-duty, looking on it as oppressive and prohibitive, and believing a considerable reduction might be made with a very slight loss of revenue." His lordship proceeds to promise, that " as soon as an opportunity occurs, he shall be propared to join in any movement for the purpose" of repeal. It is for the farmers to fix the date of this" opportunity." Mr. Benyon, very mildly indeed, for a gentleman who has been put so prominently forward as a farmer's friend, "thinks that we are entitled, at least, to some consideration, and to relief to a certain extent"-which is hitting about as hard as the inuffled prizefighter, whose backers thought he might make a dent in a pound of butter, but rather doubted his doing so. Mr. F. H. Bathurst sends the definite answer he promised-and a good straightforward answer it is, too, that we recommend to Mr. Benyon's best consideration: "I will always give my support to any proposition that may be made to lighten the tax, or, better still, to repeal it altogether." And last of all, some honourable gentleman, stror g in his own opinions and the high-minded course he is taking, writes simply from "London," omittir g to give his address, and as strangely forgetting to sign his name to what he "permits himself to say." It is this: "Whilst the nation so universe lly calls for the maintenance of such very expensive rmaments both by sea and land, so considerable an item of taxation cannot prudently be dispensed with.' Only picture a county

member writing an anonymous letter to his constituents on a subject of such vital importance to them! But this fact alone shows that the Hungerford Farmers' Club is working the malt tax as it must be worked, and that is by working the members. Will the county of Berks or Wilts own the nameless gentleman? The Club should at once offer a reward for anyone who will produce him.

THE SPARROW

FRIEND OR FOE? SIR,-Having so often written on the destructive powers of the sparrows, which you have kindly published, I must again trespass on your journal, finding that the subject has been taken up so warmly, stating that the French Government are desirous to protect the race of small birds, in consequence of the loss of their crops. Now, I consider they are under a delusion, and that a deficiency in their crops arose, in a great measure, from an unfavourable seed time and continued rain, which has frequently been the case in England.

Several persons who have written on the subject consider that sparrows are the protectors of fruit trees, by destroying insects in the buds. In this idea I consider that they are under a great delusion; also, as a proof, I was recently informed by an extensive market-gardener that he found the sparrows so very destructive to the buds that the last two winters he had employed a man with a gun, giving him 15s. per week, and that in consequence he has a fine crop of gooseberries, while his neighbours' are very bad. It is also a fallacious idea to imagine that the blight would have been prevented by the interference of these birds, it being evident that the blight on the various descriptions of fruit trees is produced by atmospheric influence; consequently we observe the blossoms fade away, and the leaves curl. Hence animalcules are seen to breed on the blighted leaves, seriously injuring the I am aware that a nume

young shoots for the next season.

quently should be protected; but the sparrows being granivorous class of birds are very useful in destroying insects, conse

rous birds, their favourite food is corn.

Watch them the year round: When the wheat is put in the ground, they pick up every uncovered kernel. As winter approaches, they flock to the yards, penetrating into the cornricks, robbing the pigs and poultry. When spring arrives, they return to the spring corn in the fields, busily employed until the month of May. When the corn is nearly all thrashed out, they are compelled to live partially on grubs and insects; and during the breeding season they no doubt destroy a number of insects in feeding their young. But a writer in your journal states that he has shot them all months in the year, and carefully examined the contents of their crops. In nine months he found scarcely anything but corn. In May, June, and July the sparrows are, from dire necessity, compelled in a great degree to subsist on grubs or insects; but as soon as the corn appears, even before it is half matured, these destructive birds commence their harvest, dispensing with insects altogether, and the destruction they effect before the corn is secured is astonishing.

To estimate the damage these destructive birds effect on that corn which produces the staff of life, calculating the cording to Mr. M'Culloch's statistics, estimating the damage number of acres sown with wheat in England and Wales acat only four pints per acre, it will prove a loss to the community of 36,160 quarters; sufficient to maintain the same number of persons annually in bread, which at this time would prove a great boon to our distressed manufacturers.

It is a great folly to talk of setting old women to drive the sparrows from the corn fields; even men with guns cannot effectually do so. If driven from one field, they are so artful, they will ay to another; if preserved, they must be fed. cious birds effect on the spring corn and various sorts of seeds, If a calculation could be made on the damage these voraboth in the gardens and fields, it would amount to a considerable sum. And although much has been written in favour of the sparrows, I have always considered them far more destructive than beneficial, having watched them for fifty years. I am convinced that when they can procure corn they will not take caterpillars; indeed, I have known my garden swarm with insect

of various descriptions, and the sparrows leave them for the corn. With such positive proofs, I must maintain my opinion that, if the sparrows are not entirely annihilated, their num bers should be reduced; if allowed to increase, it would prove a serious destruction to the staff of life in a ratio to the calculation I have previously shown. I have always endeavoured to reduce their numbers, paying for their heads, shooting, and netting them; but the most effective plan I have found is "Barber's Poisoned Wheat"; it is both simple and effectual. One kernel is sufficient to destroy a sparrow, which is not the case with larger birds. I have seen cats devour the dead aparrows voraciously, and receive no injury.

It was certainly a base act to destroy those valuable birds (to the farmers and the nation), the rooks, by poison; no doubt those vile characters used a strong decoction of nux vomica, for which they ought to be severely punished.

We find a great diversity of opinion respecting the utility of the sparrows. We find, also, a mystery recorded of them in Sacred Writ, in our blessed Saviour's remark to his disciples, that two sparrows were sold for one farthing. As that was nearly 1,900 years since, it must be considered an extraordinary price, calculating the value of money at that period. Is it not, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the high price at which they were valued arose in consequence of their destructive powers, similar to the wolf, which was annihilated from this island by a reward given for their heads?

The importance of the subject must be again my apology for entering into such a lengthened detail. Hayes, June 19.

CHARLES NEWMAN.

birds are far more powerfully benefactors than they are injurers by being thieves of seeds and fruits. They can be scared from these at a small expense, even if old women are paid to act as scarers; whereas, if the birds are destroyed, no outlay, however large, can rescue our crops from insect marauders. The destroyer of small birds is one of the most unmistakable illustrations of the old saying, "He is penny wise and pound foolish." It is preventing a small loss and insuring the occurrence of a far greater. Nor are the services of small birds restricted to the destruction of insects, for they are great consumers of the seeds of weeds. As an evidence how far in advance of us in a knowledge of these facts are our descendants on the other side of the globe, we have a letter before us detailing the successful importation into Australia of goldfinches, hedge sparrows, and other small birds. They were bought in this country, and sent by steamer to Sydney, for the express purpose of consuming the thistle seeds! We recorded some time since how a Scotchman had sown some seeds of his national emblem in Australia, and that it was overwhelming the land. The public authorities have paid large sums to children for gathering the seedheads of the thistles; but, though this has brought in a vast tribute of heads, yet the thistles are unconquered; so the Australian authorities ave allied themselves, like wise men, with the small birds. The head of the sparrow sent to us by our correspondent is longlegs, parents of root-injuring grubs, in his mouth, and now upon our table, with the green caterpillars and daddy. we wish every gardener and farmer could see it, for it is a striking though silent rebuke to them all.-Journal of Horticulture.

UTILITY OF SMALL BIRDS.

I send you in a little box what may amuse you. Here there has been on the part of the farmers and cottagers great complaints made of the mischief done by small birds to corn-fields and gardens. In vain did some hold the argument that these small robbers did as much good in destroying grubs and caterpillars as harm to wheat and black currants. For the last two years the township has not only paid for all dead sparrows, but so much a dozen for birds' eggs. I am afraid to say how many thousand dozens of eggs were taken and paid for; and, as I believe, mainly in consequence of this (aided, perhaps, by the mild winter), we have this year such a plague of caterpillars and grubs as I never remember. Since I last wrote to you I have hal three women constantly employed picking over gooseberry, apple, and currant trees, and our destruction of caterpillars has been by bushels. I felt so convinced that this plague was partly owing to the last two years' destruction of birds, that in my own grounds and in all the coverts I ordered the nests not to be molested. I now enclose you the head of a sparrow shot this morning in my garden. This was done to test what food it did take to its nest. I hope the head may reach you in the same state in which it was picked up-namely, with three green caterpillars and three daddy-longlegs in its beak. If one journey from its nest could collect so many, it is easy to guess how much may be done by them to clear trees. My trees from hand-picking are now pretty clear; but I am quite sure it would have been done cheaper and better by the birds had they been left alone. I cannot think I am sending you much information, but one fact is better than many theories.-AN IGNORAMUS near Liverpool.

We give this brief communication the most prominent position in our pages, because it relates to a subject of far more importance than it is usually believed to possess. The warfare carried on against small birds is a proceeding founded on the most self-injuring ignorance that at present overshadows our farmers and gardeners. A similar warfare has been carried on in France, and the same result has occurred there which our correspondent records as now scourging the vicinity of Liverpool-namely, a plague of caterpillars and grubs. So serious has the plague become in France that the Government have interfered, and a strong arm has been outstretched to save the small birds from destruction. We almost regret that a similar power cannot be similarly exercised on this side the Channel. We have warned our readers again and again that these

HOW A SKYLARK PREACHED A SERMON.

Stories, as well as poems, concerning the skylark abound; but one of the best, both for interest and as showing the constant love of Englishmen for this truly English bird, came to my knowledge a few months ago. As you are doubtless aware, there is no such thing as a song bird natural to Australia; there are birds who chatter, birds who shriek, but no bird that sings. Well, there was a young man who went out from England as a gold-digger, and was lucky enough to make some money, and prudent enough to take care of it. He opened a "store" (a sort of rough shop, where everything, from candles to coffins, are sold), at a place called "The Ovens," a celebrated gold-field about two hundred miles from Melbourne. Still continuing to prosper, he, like a dutiful son, wrote home for his father and mother, requesting them to come out to him, and, if they possibly could, to bring with them a lark. So a lark was procured, and in due time the old folks and their feathered charge took ship and departed from England. The old man, however, took the voyage so much to heart, that he died; but the old woman and the lark landed in sound health at Melbourne, and were speedily forwarded to Mr. Wilsted's store at The Ovens. It was on a Tuesday when they arrived, and the next morning the lark was hung outside the tent, and at once commenced piping up. The effect was electric. Sturdy diggers, big men with hairy faces and big brown hands-paused in the midst of their work, and listened reverently. Drunken, brutal diggers left unfinished the blasphemous sentence, and looked bewildered and ashamed. Far and near the news spread like lightning-" Have you heard the lark ?" "Is it true, mate, that there is a real English skylark up at Jack Wilsted's ?" So it went on for three days, and then came Sunday morning. Such a sight had not been seen since the first spadeful of the golden earth had been turned! From every quarter-east, west, north, and south-from far-off hills and from creeks twenty miles away, came a steady concourse of great rough Englishmen, all brushed and washed as decent as possible. The movement was by no means preconcerted, and was evident from the half-ashamed expression of every man's face. There they were, however, and their errand was--to hear the lark. Nor were they disappointed. There, perched in his wood and iron pulpit, was the little minister, and as though aware of the importance of the task before him, he plumed his crest, and, lifting up his voice, sang them a sermon infinitely more effective than the bishop himself could have preached. t was a wonderful sight to see that three or four hundred

men, some reclining on the ground, some sitting with their arms on their knees and their heads on their hands, some leaning against the trees with their eyes closed, so that they might the better fancy themselves at home and in the midst of English cornfields once more; but sitting, standing, or lying, all were equally quiet and attentive; and when, after an hour's steady preaching, the lark left off, his audience soberly started off, a little low-spirited perhaps, but on the

whole much happier than when they came. "I say, Joe," one digger was heard to say to another," do you think that Wilsted would sell him-the bird you know? I'll give as much gold dust for him as he weighs, and think him cheap." "Sell him, be blowed!" was the indignant response; "how would you like a fellar to come to our village at home and make a bid for our parson ?”—Home Pets.-Article "The Skylark."

A sight that has attracted considerable attention among Londoners is the oil-mill in motion in the western annexe of the International Exhibition, crushing seed for oil; and the manufacture thereof oilcake, with which to fatten those cattle for the butcher. The manufacture and consumption of oil-cake, and the certainty of obtaining it genuine, are of immense importance to the farmer. So large is the import of foreign cake, exclusive of the home production, that the farmer is quite at the mercy of any careless or unprincipled makers for the health and good condition of his valuable stock. Last year were imported 113,725 tons of oil-seed cake, besides nearly 1 million quarters of oil-seeds for crushing-and more than half of the latter came from India. Now any one conversant with the trade knows full well what a large quantity of mustardseeds and wild rapes (known as surgu in India), furnished by various species of Sinapis, come in from the east. From Madras there are exported 12,000 to 13,000 quarters of Sinapis seed. If the mustard-cake were restricted to its proper use the fertilizing of the land-there would be no cause of complaint: but, unfortunately, the dishonest dealer is tempted to find a better market for it, and the foul samples of seed used in the manufacture of oilcake have a most detrimental effect on cattle. It is now an extremely difficult matter to obtain a genuine sample of cake.

In three cases which have lately attracted public attention, the death of cattle was unquestionably the result of foreign matter: in one case in rape, in the other two in linseed-cake-and this, not in a single head or two of stock, but was fatal to a considerable number of cattle. In one case-that of Jackson v. Harrison-tried last February, the plaintiff was nonsuited because the cake was not warranted! So that, with such loopholes in the portals of justice, what security has the farmer against the loss of valuable animals by poisonous food, for which a high price is paid?

One great source of mischief arises from the grinding up of inferior foreign cake (always containing much mustard and extraneous matter), and mixing it with English seed to form so-called English cake. We also believe that the frequent and continued administration of mustard to cattle, even in small quantities, is much more injurious to them than is usually supposed. From such a cause alone are we able to account for the peculiar post-mortem appearances we have seen in cattle which have died from eating linseed cake, and which have generally been found to contain various kinds of mustard-seed. The proportion of mustard-seed in the seed imported from India is very large. We have often seen linseed-oil which is unbear able, when a vessel containing it is opened, on account of the volatile oil of mustard which has been present. Dr. Voelcker states that rape-cake, even when containing a very large proportion of mustard, has no smell whatever, nor is the smell developed immediately on mixing with water. The fact that the smell of mustard does not appear within an hour, or even

two or three hours, does not prove the absence of mustard. But if you place the mixture in a tolerably warın room, or even in a common sitting-room, and do not find a strong smell after the lapse of 24 hours, you may safely conclude that there is not an injurious quantity of mustard present. If the smell be very strong, more particularly if the taste is strong, mustard is present in injurious quantities. All rape contains, to a certain extent, a pungent; indeed all the seeds belonging to the Brassica species develop a strong smell, but you do not get anything like that pungent taste, biting on the tongue, in rapeseed. Hull and Driffield are the great seats of cake manufacture in the North. Excluding dirt, &c., the adulteration found in cake are of two kinds, injurious and innocent. They consist of husks of black mustard and the Sinapis arvensis. This latter seed is regularly purchased from the farmers on the Wolds (where it often occurs to a great extent in the crops), for the known purpose of cake adulteration. Ground rape cake is often used for feeding, also cotton cake. There is a certain danger in using cotton cake made of the whole seed. There is nothing poisonous in the husks of the cotton seed, and when given judiciously no injury will result; but if animals are supplied with an unlimited quantity of dry food with the whole seed, there is, indeed, a danger. The hard husk is indigestible, and may roll together in such large masses, that inflammation of the bowels may ensue.

There is no such danger, however, in the use of decorticated cotton cake. Every person has the means of examining the condition of decorticated cake with very little trouble. The cotton affords an excellent criterion as to its freshness. The new made cotton cake is as yellow as mustard: if the cake be brown it is stale. The deeper the colour has penetrated the older is the cake, and the more it has suffered by keeping. The marc of the ground-wort (Arachis lypogaa) is used in the form of cake after the oil has been expressed. The same is the case with the Niger cake from Guizotea oleifera, of which the imports to England are about 7,000 quarters from Madras. Of the Niger seed we do not know sufficient to be able to say how far it is injurious. Buckwheat has been employed largely in cake as well as bran. To so great an extent is the sophistication carried on, that we know one or two farmers who have given up the use of cake, and feed their cattle with boiled linseed.

Farmers are in some degree to blame, as they always buy an article for the least money; though the fact of its being below the market price should tell them that it cannot be genuine. There are two evils to which they are subjected by this course: 1st, the probable loss of their cattle; and, 2ndly, the certain loss in the feeding properties of the food purchased.

We notice by the monthly Board of Trade returns that during the past five months there has been a great decrease in the imports both of cake and oilseeds, as compared with the corresponding period of the two previous years.