_70, Lionel Street, Birmingham, July 13._
* * * * *
But after all, even if Mr. IKE WARD had chosen to employ
his leisure in performing on the bones in a nigger troupe on the
sands at Scarborough or elsewhere he would have done nothing to be
ashamed of. Obviously, however, Captain GRICE-HUTCHINSON'S
account was anything but authentic, and he had no business to cork Mr.
WARD'S face in so gratuitous a manner.
'Tis a manifest error, this tale about bones--
(You may like what I say, or, if not, you may lump it).
For a worker in brass must produce the best tones
If--I don't say he did it--he blew his own trumpet.
* * * * *
In any record of electoral humour Mr. MUNTZ, the member for
Tamworth, must hold a distinguished place. Here is a report of some of
the remarks made by him at meetings in the Nuneaton Division:--
Mr. MUNTZ, in the course of his remarks, characterised Lord
SALISBURY'S Government as the most able Administration
that had ever held office in any Parliament the world over. It was
composed of all the great intellect which, prior to the introduction
of the Home Rule Bill, was divided between the two great parties
of the State. Now all that was left to the Liberal party was the
tagrag and bobtail. The late Radical Administration was a failure
under Mr. GLADSTONE, great man as he was, and a still
greater failure under Lord ROSEBERY, to whom Her Majesty
had presented the Thistle. (_Laughter._) As to agriculture, he said
that he had a conversation with Mr. CHAMBERLAIN on the
subject just before the dissolution. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN said
to him, "MUNTZ, what are we to do for agriculture?" and
he replied, "That's a big question. You have all the great talent
and all the great landed interest in the country represented in the
present Government; and if the present Government can do nothing
for agriculture, there is nothing to be done for agriculture."
(_Applause._)
After reading this I feel that the question of agricultural distress
is settled. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN must, indeed, be a proud man at
having obtained so much valuable information in answer to a question
which, as reported, sounds familiar almost to the verge of rashness.
* * * * *
Can pigs be kept at a profit? This was the question which confronted
the Devonport Guardians only the other day. The following extract from
their proceedings will be read with breathless interest:--
Mr. H. W. BRYANT moved "That the Guardians give up pig
keeping, either at the house or otherwise."
Mr. HEALY seconded.--Mr. OLIVER supported, and said
they could buy the pork cheaper than keep pigs, and that every pig
they had kept cost them 1_s._ per lb.
Mr. J. GOODMAN said he was a "piggery man." (_Laughter._) He
liked the pig, he liked the pork, and he liked the profit that the pig
brought. He was surprised to hear Mr. OLIVER say that the
pigs cost 1_s._ per lb. He said it did not cost them 2-1/2_d._ per lb.
Mr. CHEW pointed out that the profit on pig keeping last year
in the house was £39.
Mr. PENBERTHY said the master entered in his books that it
cost them 6_d._ per lb., and Mr. J. MOORE maintained that
they could buy pork at 4-1/2_d._ per lb. The motion was lost, 8 voting
for, and 18 against.
"I'm a piggery man," said GOODMAN, J., "though pigs are a wee bit
squealy;
But I won't sit still to hear pigs denounced by BRYANT and scorned by
HEALY.
Let those who prefer it till the fields, and see what a year's hard
dig brings;
_I_ like the pig, and I like the pork, and I like the profit the pig
brings."
Then CHEW, he chawed Mr. BRYANT up, Mr. HEALY to dust he ground, Sir;
And MOORE maintained you could purchase pork at fourpence halfpenny a
pound, Sir.
But the piggery men prevailed by ten, a majority quite on the big side,
Since eighteen voted for pigs that day, and eight on the anti-pig side.
* * * * *