The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-04 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY.

Mr. CAIRD, in nic:vin-i the --second reading of the
Agricultural Statistics Bill, showed how the want of in-
formation upon this important subject affected the in.
terests of the producers of food, the consumers, and the
monetary and commercial interests of the country. The
first class included small as well as rich (armors, who
equally suffered, ha- mid, from ignorance of these eta.
tistlos. Upon the second class, more especially the
great mass of the labouring community, a sudden and
serious rise in the price of bread, mused by this want of
knowledge,, bore severely ; while the fluctuations In
the prim oicereal produce and the enormous sums paid
for imports of foreign corn deeply affected the third
class, tending to produce commercial mimes. He then
explained what was done in foreign countries, and the
Mop. taken in this country to obtain agricultural sta.
tidies, and the machinery of his Bill, which was framed
he observed, to meet objections, and which contained no
provisions that could be considered compulsory,
Mr. PACKS moved to defer the second reading for six
months, The farmer', lie said, to whom it was alleged
this measure would be of use, were alarmed at it, and
he wanted to know why farmers should be singled out
to have their affitirs inquired into. He dwelt upon the
obnoxious and, AA lie contended, the inquisitorial and
compulaory character of certain clauses of the Bill, and
observed that the only petition on this subject from
farmers—those of Liticolnshiro—prayed the House to
reject this Bill upon those ground.,
This amendment was seconded by Mr. Du CAN!, who
oharaeterised the Bill as a iiieoe of experimental lees.
lation, contrary to the spirt of fair play, which would
prove not only useless, but a snare and delusion.
Sir G. LINTS observed that, although he believed
that the fears of the agricultural interest with Merinos
to the collection of thee, statistics were unfounded, and
that the alarm had been much dissipated, the question
remained whether they would be of any real benefit.
He did not believe that they would be of the smallest
practical present value, and he cited the opinion of Mr.
Tooke, who said that, however demirable agricultural
statistics might be In a general point of view, they were
not likely to hare the slightest influence in imparting
steadinese to the markets. He should like to know, he
aaid what would be the probable expense of collecting
these agricultural statistics in England. Leaving out of
consideration the compulsory and inqusitorial objection
the true question, he thought, we. whether, when these
statiotice were got, they would be worth the price
paid for them.
Mr. Dimming') agreed with Sir G. Lewis that these
statiatlea would not make, and never could make, the
etnallest differentia, or be of the slightest utility in a
praotiosl point of view. Mr. Caird, he said had not
drawn a distinction between farmers and speculators in
corn. The farmer should not be encouraged to sell or
refuse to sell. Let him bring lila corn to market,, he
wanted and not be turned into a speculator.
Mr. TURNSR supported the Bill. It was important,
he said,
nnected to
with tra have light and information upon all subjects
' code.
Mr. BeNTINCE objected to the principle and the
machinery of the Bill, whioh, he bellev4 scald pro-
cure no information that would be really useful.
Mr. LINDSAY, with reference to what had been said

H.
by Mr. Drummond, asked what was a speculator?
was one who played the game of chance. The fanner,
when kept in the dark, became the prey of this gamester,
and it was the duty of the House to enlighten him.
He argued strongly in support of the Bill.
Mr. K. SEYHER as strenuously opposed it. Pressed
by domestic and foreign competition, the British farmer,
he said, grew as much corn as he could, and he was not
to be required to furnish information not extorted from
other traders. The object of the Bill was to obtain
returns of the passage; but while that was certain, the
yield was uncertain. Valuable information might al-
ways be got from private enterprise as to the prospects
of crops.
Mr. Bass observed that it had not been shown that
any harm could be done by the Bill, in support of which
he suggested how the want of knowing the quantity
of barley grown affected his own large purchases of that
grain.
Mr. CARDWELL considered that the British fanner was
the penion most interested in obtaining these statistics.
If a large purchaser of barley, like Mr. Bass, told them
that it was interesting to him to obtain such knowledge,
how much more so must it be to the fanner? He ad.
nutted that a compulsory measure would entirely fail,
since it was not analogous to our other institutions, and
not congenial to the feelings of the country; and, look-
ing at the machinery of the Bill, he recommended Hz,
Caird to withdraw it.
Mr. HENLEY said the first great difficulty of this sub-
ject had been created ten years ago by the course taken
by the then Government, the effect of which was to
excite a feeling throughout the agricultural districts
hostile to these statistics; and this feeling had been in.
creased by a more recent attempt to make their collec-
tion compulsory. He then proceeded to consider the
nature and quality of the information which the provi-
sions of the Bill were adapted to acquire, the labour and
cost of acquiring it, And (as suggested by Sir G. Lewis)
whether that information would be worth the expense,
of which, he said, he could form no correct estimate.
He hoped Mr. Caind would take the advice of Mr. Card.
well, and withdraw the Bill, the machinery of whiak he
was convinced would not work.
Mr. MILER was convinced that the agriculturist,
throughout &Wand had not the slightest objection to
returns of the acreage, so long as there was no inter-
ference with produce and stock. Taking the principle
of the Bill from its preamble he should vote for it, but
he suggested that it should be left to the Government
to work out the details of the measure.
Mr. STANHOPE, Sir J. &MALEY, and Mr. Batt spoke
in opposition to the Bill.
Mr. CAIRD, in reply, declined to adopt the suggestion
of Mr. Cardwell, but would be ready, if the Bill were
read a second time, to accept Mr. Milee's recommend
ation, and leave to the Government the working out of
its principle.
Upon a division, the amendment was carried by 24/
to 135; so the Bill is lost.
The House adjourned at • quarter to 6 o'clock.