The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY Ev E iNGI, MARCH 12 1856.

read a long letter from Mr. Paul Fosk et t, setting forth
the many advantages which would mist) from a system
of agricultural statistics. tip to the present time all
calculations on the subject of agriculture had been based
to a large extent upon conjecture, more especially in
England. In Ireland the constabulary returns certainly
furnished some reliable information ; and in Scotland also
the state of agricultural statistics was more satisfactory.
England was the only country in the civilised world which
did not possess this kind of informations In France, Bel-
gium,Holland—nay,jeven in Russia—there were the most
minute agricultural statistics. The machinery of the poor-
law board had been especially tried exec) 1853 in two
counties, Norfolk and Hampshire. In. the latter county
many farmers exhibited a great indisposition to make re-
turns. An impression appeared to exist among them
that it was an inquisitorialattempt to obtain a knowledge
of their affairs, made with a view eit'her to the imposi-
tion of additional taxation, or the raising of their rent.
With regard to the first point, he should have thought
that no person in his senses could really believe that the
information obtained by the Government would be used
for that purpose ; with regard to the second, he thought
that landlord mast either be very ignorant himself, or
nsustl be very ill served by his steward, who had not an ac-
curate knowledge of the state of the farm and the amount
of stock. The experiment made in Norfolk and Hamp-
shire, though not so successful as the experiment in Scot-
land, was not by any means unsuccessful, the failure in
making returns amounting to about 7 per cent. After
these attempts had been made the matter was referred to
a committee of their lordships' house, and it was worth
their lordships' while to consider attentively the evidence
given before that committee. With hardly a single ex-
ception the inspectors reported that the poor-law machi-
nery was well adapted for the purpose ; but they also de-
clared that it was useless to attempt to collect agricul-
tural statistics without power being given to impose a
penalty on farmers who declined to fill up the schedules.
In accordance with this view the committee recom-
mended that compulsory powers should be granted re-
sembling those which were provided in the case of the
census. Is justification of such a provision, he might
observe that many farmers had stated that if the thing
were done in a constitutional manner, that is on the autho-
rity of the law of the land, they would have no objection to
give information, and it was his own belief that if this
bill were passed there would be no occasion to exercise
the compulsory powers, and that the information sought
would be obtained without difficulty and without
grumbling. The noble lard then read extracts from the
evidence of the isspectors, in support of the compulsory
powers proposed by the bill. It was intended, he said,
that two classes of returns should be made, an-
nually, the estimated return and the actual return, and
that the bill should not extend to holdings under 20
acres. The provisions of the measure were these : In
the month of Feb. every year the overseer of the poor
was to send to the Poor-law Board a return from every
occupier of the parish, including the nature of the occu-
pation. In May a schedule was to be issued, which was
to be returnable on the Ist of June, such schedule to con-
tain the acreage and the different descriptions of live
stock. The schedules thus obtained were to be sent in
the first instance to the Poor-law Board, and by them
were to be transmitted to the Board of Trade for classi-
fication and arrangement. For the purpose of securing
these returns compulsory powers were given, under
which any person declining to fill up the schedule might
be summoned before a justice of the peace, who would
be authorised to inflict a penalty. In the event of
an ultimate refusal to make any return, the magis-
trate was to be empowered to appoint a person
to enter on the farm and make a valuation. There
• were to be two penalties, one Si. and the other 40e.
Toe first would be applicable solely to overseers and
their officers who neglected to perform their duty ; and,
on the other hand, farmers declining to fill up the sche-
dule were to be liable to a penalty not exceeding 405.,
to be levied on the authority of a magistrate of the dis-
trict, and to be paid to the parish in which the offence
was committed, on account of the relief of the poor.
These were the principal provisions of the bill. With
regard to the estimate, it was not thought desirable to
make that compulsory. It was to be left to the discre-
tion of the officers of the Poor-Law Board to frame such
an ultimate as they might deem expedient. The occu-
pier was not to be required to make a return in June
of the produce of his land, but merely of the acreage
and the different descriptions of crops. The esti-
mate after harvest might be obtained by different
means, among others by testing the quality of the
crop, and thus arriving at an average. That, how-
ever, was a matter which was left for subsequent
arrangement. It should be observed in regard to the
employment of the machinery of the poor law that
the Poor-law Board in London were not to be required
to employ any of their official agents in the c iuntry if
I they did not consider it expedient to do so. The board
might employ clerks of the union, overseers, and other
F local officers, if they thought proper ; but if there was
r any reluctance on the part of local officials to act in the
matter, it would be competent to them to employ other
persons to carry out the object of the bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY inquired by whom the
person appointed by the board for that purpose was to
be paid ?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—By the Poor-
law Board.
The Earl of MALMESBURY—Out of what fund ?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—By a vote of Par-
liament. Having thus stated the substance of the mea-
sure, he would now:ask their lordships to assent to the
second reading. The obtaining of the information in
.question was, he really believed, of the greatest im-
• port ince to the country ; and while it would confer
• inestimable benefits on the country at large, it would be
• especially beneficial to the agriculturists themselves.
On the question that the bill be read a second time,
Lord DUNGANNON said he considered the b:11
which had just been brought before their lordships arbi.
trary and inquisitorial, and believed it would annihilate
the independence of character and position which he for
one wished the English farmer always to enjey. As a
landlord, he should deeply regret his tenants being com-
pelled to submit to the provisions of a bill which autho-
rised intru.ion into their private affairs. He must re-
mind their lordships that one year the crops on a farm
might be very large, and the cattle very numerous, and
the next year they might be very small ; and yet by this
bill the farmer would be compelled to make a disclosure
of his private affairs. Such a bill as this was not neces-
sary for the attainment of the object, which might be
secured by means of a return of the number of acres cul-
tivated, and of stock kept, throughout the country. He
hoped that some time would be allowed after the Easter
recess, before the bill went to a committee, in order tbat
the farming interest might have an ample opportunity
of considering its hearings and expressing their opinion
on the subject. The provision that a farmer who failed
to make a return within a limited period might be
brought before a justice of the peace and fined for the
omission appeared to him to place the farm3r on a level
with the keeper of a beer-house ; and though he admitted
that it was desirable that the information in question
should ke obtained, he thought it should be sought with-
out resorting to an arbitrary course of proceeding which
would degrade the character of the British yeoman.
The Earl of DERBY said—My lords, as to the appre-
hensions of my noble friend, I think, if he felt them
strongly, it was his duty, not only to offer his objections
to the bill, but to resist the second reading of it, inas-
much as it appears to me that the objections he has urged
went to the whole principle of the measure. I fear that
the observations made by my noble friend will rather tend
to increase that feeling of jealousy in respect to the powers
referred t), which it ought to be our object as much as
possible to allay. I have been for a long time satisfied of
the great importance—and to the farmers more especially
--of obtaining as far as possible accurate statistical infor-
mation as to our agricultural prospects. And I may men-
tion this fact in corroboration of that statement, that is
a few days after
.I took office in 1852 I wrote a letter to
my noble friend the Duke of Richmond, urging upon
him the importance of obtaining accurate agricultural
statistics in the counties with which he was connected,
and pressing upon him the wisdom of obtaining from
the Agricultural Society of England their concur-
rence in this proceeding, so that by their intervention
they might induce the farmers to supply that information
voluntarily ; and I promised the noble duke that the as-
sistance of Government in effecting this object would be
given in every way possible. It is not, therefore, now
for the first time that I have expressed this opinion; but
having read the report of the committee of last year upon
this subject, and of that of the committee of 1854, I have
come to the conclusion that to obtain accurate agricul-
tural statistics is a matter of extreme importance to the
country generally, and to no class of greater importance
than to the practical agriculturists themselves. (Hear.) I
must confess, also, that I have come to the conclusion,
from reading the evidence before last year's committee,
that if you are to obtain this information in England you
must obtain it by means of a compulsory measure. I
further and entirely concur in the opinion expressed by
the witnesses examined before such committee, that
if you desire to obtain full and accurate informa-
tion the farmers themselves would rather give it
in obedience to the law which all persons will be equally
bound to obey, than give it under circumstances which
made it optional for each individual to supply such in-
formation, and which left the farmers uncertain as to
whether the same information will not be also given by
others of their class. It is manifest that if the informa-
tion be not given generally the result will be fallacious.
I am convinced, then, that it is in the first instance of

great importance to obtain accurate agricultural statis-
tics, and in the next that to obtain such information with
the least amount of dissatisfaction from the farmers, some
cen3pulsory power must be resorted to. My noble friend
behind me has spoken of the degradation which would
be inflicted upon the farmers by sending:parties into their
houses requiring them to make returns of their live stock
and produce. Now, I confess I see no degradation what-
ever on the part of any farmer or occupier of land in mak-
ing a return of that which it is obvious may be ascer-
tained by any of his neighbours, or by the slightest in-
spection which the landlord has the opportunity of making
either by himself or by his steward ; or which may be
obtained without the landlord seeing the land at all, by
his simply knowing what rotation of crops had been pre-
scribed for the land in question. My opinion is, that of
the two modes of obtaining this information—namely,
whether the statement is to be made for the farmer or
by him—that that must be the most satisfactory to him
which is made by himself. Now, what was the farmer
called upon to state ? He was not called upon, as my
noble friend has stated, to disclose any of his private af-
fairs. He is only called upon to state that he holds a
certain number of acres, and he is then to say how much
of his land is laid down in wheat, how much in barley,
how much in oats, and in other descriptions of produce.
And while I am on this subject I wish to tbrow it out for
the consideration of the Government whether the co-
lumns of their proposed schedule are not unnecessarily